The appeal is dismissed.

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

1. In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with more than two crimes, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only constitutes a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Thus, even if the process of the whole conspiracy does not exist, if the combination of doctors is made either in order or impliedly, among several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established.

Although strict proof is not required to acknowledge such a conspiracy, in a case where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the object, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by means of a reasonable method of determining the connection of the fact based on a close observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721 Decided December 22, 2011, etc.). Furthermore, a co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements of criminal practice through the functional control by the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. As such, a person who did not directly share the elements of a crime among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a co-principal depending on whether such requirements are met.

On the other hand, in order to be recognized as a co-principal by a person who did not directly participate in the act of composition, he is not merely a person of conspiracy, taking into account his position in the entire crime or his control or influence on the progress of the crime.