The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A Imprisonment with prison labor for two years, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) The Defendant alone committed the thief and a structure intrusion crime of this case (hereinafter “each of the crimes of this case”) by himself, and did not commit either the act of conspiracy or conspiracy with a person with no name, and even though he did not commit each of the crimes of this case, Defendant A and a person with no name, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s punishment (six months of imprisonment without prison labor and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(c)

1) In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted Defendant A and D on the part of the joint crime of this case, although it could be recognized that each of the crimes of this case was committed in collusion with Defendant A and D, was erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, which acquitted Defendant D on the part of the joint crime of this case.

2) Improper sentencing (for Defendant A), the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of facts, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant legal doctrine is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing.

The so-called crime liability as a joint principal offender may be imposed even when a person who has not directly shared and implemented part of the constituent requirements among the conspiracys. However, considering the status, role, control or power over the progress of the crime in the whole crime, it should be recognized that the person has a functional control through the essential contribution to the crime rather than just the person who has committed the crime.

Joint processing intention is to recognize another person's crime but not to restrain it.