The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was that the Defendant was driving a vehicle to the scene of accomplice A, and it was confirmed at the underground parking lot that there was a H’s parent’s vehicle, and even before the key repair shop arrives, the Defendant was in the scene of the crime. Thus, in order to recognize the Defendant’s escape from the conspiracy, the Defendant was required to actively refrain from committing the crime, and to remove the influence on the Defendant’s implementation. However, the Defendant did not endeavor to do so, it cannot be said that he left the conspiracy.

2. In the case of a co-principal of a judgment, when one of the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons among the persons who are engaged in the contest has left from the contest before the others reach an action, they do not bear the responsibility of co-principal with respect to the subsequent acts of the other persons, and the indication of the renunciation does not necessarily require an explicit indication (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2371, Jan. 21, 1986). However, in the case of a co-principal of a judgment, the deviation from the contest does not require the removal of functional control by the persons who are engaged in the contest by means of the contest. Therefore, in a case where the persons who participated in the contest led to the execution of the other persons,

(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274 Decided April 10, 2008). Meanwhile, if two or more persons in a special larceny jointly intrudes on another person’s residence for the purpose of larceny during a week, not at night, but at night, if one of them intrudes on another’s residence for the purpose of larceny, the commission of special larceny may not be deemed to have commenced prior to commencement of the act of painting the object to be stolen.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9667, Dec. 24, 2009). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, “A” is golded to G and H from home on December 24, 2013, and money to go out.