All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (1) 1) misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not recommend the upper Defendant from K to “O” in the section from K to “O” restaurant, and rather, the Defendant recognized that the Defendant instigated the Defendant to drive under the influence of alcohol or drive under the influence of alcohol, even though he was in a state of mental and physical disability due to under the influence of alcohol, the lower court erred by misunderstanding of facts. In addition, even though the Defendant could not be deemed to have any contact or predictability regarding the Defendant’s act of dangerous driving, the lower court, which recognized the Defendant’s co-principal, such as the Defendant’s death on dangerous driving, was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the co-principal or predictability of the criminal negligence. 2) In so doing, the lower court’s punishment (three years and

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant A (unfair punishment) (one year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor, and one year of short term) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) Joint principal offender can be acknowledged if there is a communication among doctors, regardless of the intention or negligence. If two or more persons have committed an act of negligence and caused the result of committing an offense under the communication with each other, the joint principal offender of the crime of negligence is constituted (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Do1249, Aug. 21, 1979; 82Do781, Jun. 8, 1982). 2) Defendant B asserted to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part.

The lower court acknowledged the following facts and circumstances based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated, i.e.,, the Defendant instigated the Defendant to drive a vehicle to K at a meal place, which is a second place after the Defendant’s authority to provide alcohol to the Defendant A at the first place, and thereafter K’s key.