All appeals are dismissed.

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

1. As to Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

A. The facts charged should be stated clearly by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The date and time of a crime should be stated to the extent that it does not conflict with double prosecution or prescription, and the purport of the law requiring the specification of the facts charged by such elements is to facilitate the exercise of the defendant’s right to defense. As such, the facts charged ought to be comprehensively stated to the extent that the facts constituting the elements constituting the crime are distinguishable from other facts.

Therefore, even if the date, time, place, etc. of a crime are not explicitly indicated in the indictment, it is not against the above degree, and it is inevitable to generalize it in light of the nature of the crime charged, and if it seems that there is no hindrance to the defendant's exercise of his/her right to defense against it, the validity of the indictment does not affect (see Supreme Court Decisions 89Do2020, Dec. 12, 1989; 2002Do2939, Oct. 11, 2002, etc.). In addition, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly committing a crime by more than two persons, and it is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirement that the crime is committed through functional control based on the intention of joint processing and its common intent. As such, a part of the conspiracy is not carried out by direct sharing of part of the constituent requirements.

Even if it is recognized that there exists a functional control through an essential contribution to a crime in full view of the status, role, control or power over the progress of the crime in the whole crime, the crime cannot be exempted (Supreme Court Decision 2007Do428 Decided April 26, 2007), and Supreme Court Decision 207Do428 Decided April 26, 2007.