The judgment below

Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months.

. Prosecutors;

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B did not have been involved or participated in the crime Nos. 113 through 205 in the crime list (3) as stated in the facts charged, and the crime Nos. 225 through 265.

B. Sentencing 1) The sentence sentenced by the Prosecutor (Defendant A: 4 years and 6 months of imprisonment; Defendant B; 3 years of imprisonment; Defendant D: imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years; Defendant C; exemption from punishment) is too unfluent and unfair.

2) The sentence imposed by the lower court by Defendant A, B, and D is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts is that the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order that the joint principal offender is established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control by the joint doctor, which is subjective element, with the intention of joint processing and objective requirement. Joint processing intent is to jointly act with another person’s act and to shift one’s own intent to implement a specific criminal act (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.). In addition, in the relation of joint processing with two or more persons, if two or more persons jointly engage in a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, and if two or more persons jointly engaged in a crime and intend to realize a crime through joint processing of the crime, the relationship is established in order or secret, and if so, the defendant was not directly engaged in the act of joint processing, and thus, the court below’s judgment as to the joint principal offender’s act (see Supreme Court Decision 20131Do1381, May 201, 201, etc.).