The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, but did not constitute a joint principal offender.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that determined the Defendant as a joint principal offender for each of the instant crimes.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of the misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a subjective element that requires the fact of implementation of a crime through a functional control by a joint doctor as an objective element. As such, the intent of joint processing as a subjective element is not sufficient to recognize another person's crime and to allow it without preventing it, and it should be one to commit a specific criminal act with a common intent, and it should be decided that one's own will will be transferred by using another person's act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do2461, Jan. 26, 1996, etc.). Since the essence of joint principal offender is a functional control by a division of occupational roles, the joint principal offender is distinguishable from the two in that it has no functional control by a joint doctor, and it is reasonable to see that the defendant lawfully participated in the criminal act by mutual doctor, and in light of the legal principles as seen above, it is reasonable to see the defendant's specific participation in the criminal act as well as the evidence duly adopted by the court below.

(1) The Defendant from February 17, 2017 to February 28, 2017.