All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which is determined as to Defendant A’s misunderstanding of the facts and the assertion of misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, is jointly committed by two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and functional control as an objective element, as a subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent should be integrated for committing a specific criminal act with the intention of joint intent, and shall be transferred to one another’s execution by using another’s act.

When comprehensively taking into account the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc. of a person who does not directly participate in and implement part of the acts constituting the elements of the conspiracy, if it is deemed that functional control exists through essential contribution to the crime rather than merely a person with a simple conspiracy, he/she may be held liable for the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of submitting a list of N-related value added tax evasion and a list of separate tax invoices by false purchaser, and a list of tax invoices by false purchaser by false purchaser related to AS.

The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

The lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on joint principal offenders of public offering, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal

2. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the punishment of death or imprisonment for life or for not less than ten years shall be imposed on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.