The judgment below

Of the above, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

AA shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

except that this judgment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found Defendant A guilty of a special injury, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, even though Defendant A did not participate in the crime of this case only with A who tried to see that Defendant A was guilty.

B. The lower court’s punishment of Defendant AA, Y, and Z (DefendantY, Z: Imprisonment with labor for one year, Defendant AA: imprisonment with labor for one year, suspension of execution for two years, observation of protection) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act on the assertion of mistake of facts of Defendant A is jointly committing a crime by two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, the joint principal offender requires a fact of implementation of a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and it is not sufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but to accept it without any restriction. However, there is a mutual understanding that prior conspiracy of a crime plan should not be required, or that each accomplice satisfies the requirements of organization or share the act in essence related to the elements of organization (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). If two or more joint principal offenders are jointly engaged in a crime, a joint principal offender is not a joint principal offender, and if one or more joint principal offenders are jointly engaged in a criminal act with another person’s intent, it is not a joint principal offender, but a joint principal offender is established.