The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A was able to catch and trace the order keeping line in the form of plastic materials, and did not do so. Defendant B did not have any fact, Defendant B left the police officer with his mouth and clothes, and did not agree to walk the police officer S’s boat. Defendant V’s accomplice was not opened the police officer’s boat because he was fluor, and Defendant B did not leave the front side of the police officer’s X-W was blue with the police officer’s right side, and there was no fact that some of the Defendants participated in the assembly, different from the fact that the Defendants participated in the assembly, did not constitute a joint principal offender of the instant crime. Defendant B cannot be said to be the joint principal offender of the instant crime.

B. Each sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for Defendant A, two years of suspended sentence in August, and one year of suspended sentence in June) is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the statements from the court of the first instance of X, and S, this part of the Defendants’ assertion is without merit. 2) The conspiracy to commit a crime is not required under the law, but is a combination of intent to realize a crime. Thus, even if there was no process of the whole mother, if there was no process of the conspiracy to commit a crime, the conspiracy is established in the order of multiple persons or impliedly or implicitly.

As long as such public offering has been made, even those who did not participate in the conduct, shall be co-principals in the conduct of other public bidders.