All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1 is a single criminal offense by Defendant A, including mistake of facts, and there is no fact of conspiracy with Defendant B, and thus there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in determining otherwise. 2) The lower court’s sentencing against Defendant A is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, including mistake of facts, did not have recruited Defendant A and the instant crime, and even if there were some aspects of contribution to Defendant A’s crime, this is merely an aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act, and there is an error of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below otherwise. 2) The sentencing of the court below on Defendant B of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of mistake of facts, etc. 1) As a matter of course, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, subjective requirements are the intent of joint processing and objective requirements, which require the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. The intention of joint processing is one of the two ways to commit a specific criminal act with a joint intent, and it should be the fact that one uses another’s act and move one’s own intent to practice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). Meanwhile, the essence of joint principal offender is a functional control through a separate division of roles, and it is contrary to the fact that the joint principal offender has a functional control by a joint principal doctor, and thus, there is no control over the said act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 8Do12477, Apr. 11, 1989).