All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the legal principles) did not discover the victim from the injured party to return the passbook, copy of the business registration certificate, key to the Defendant’s name, etc., or to receive a written application, nor did he conspired to steals the goods of Defendant B and the victim, or to force the settlement of accounts.

B) In relation to the part regarding special larceny, even if the victim’s address was known with the driver’s license, it is merely a locked use of the driver’s license, and since the neck card and cash card did not intend to use it, there was no intention to use it, and in fact there was no intention to obtain illegal acquisition of the driver’s license, check card and cash card.

C) Regarding the part of the crime of robbery, property nature is not recognized for each payment made by the victim at the request of the Defendants, and there is no relation between intimidation and cash, cellular phone acquisition.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s punishment sentenced by the lower court (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act (i) commits a crime jointly by more than two persons, and thus the offender’s intent of joint processing is the subjective element. However, the joint principal offender’s intent to commit a specific criminal act is one of the joint process perceptions that he/she intends to move his/her intent to practice, and the joint principal offender’s intent to commit a specific criminal act is expressed in secret, and it does not necessarily require any procedure of a conspiracy in advance (see Supreme Court Decision 2004 delivered on October 28, 2004).