The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In a case where it is acknowledged that the defendant conspireds with other persons to commit the same criminal act with the same content as that of other persons on the grounds of misunderstanding of the legal principles on the limit of Amendments to Bill of Indictment, it is not necessarily necessary to amend the bill of indictment in a case where the defendant is not likely to have any substantial disadvantage in exercising his/her right of defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do309, Apr. 26, 2007; 2013Do5752, Oct. 14, 2013). According to the records, the first instance court acknowledged the defendant as a joint principal offender without any amendment to the facts in the instant case where the first instance court was charged for the same offense, but all of the facts charged in the instant case and the first instance court acknowledged the defendant as a joint principal offender without any amendment to the purport that the defendant conspireds with the existing investigative agency to present his/her opinion on the facts concerning the employee of the D Environmental Corporation and to inform the defendant's opinion on his/her own formation and its specific motive to act.