The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below determined otherwise in the absence of a conspiracy by misunderstanding the substance of the grounds for appeal and misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defendant's head as the main disease. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

It is unfair that the sentence of the court below (6 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

As to the assertion of misunderstanding the legal principles, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly and severally committing a crime. In order for the joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to jointly process intent and objective requirements, and the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control based on the common intent is insufficient to recognize and refrain from committing another person's crime, and the intention of joint process is not sufficient, and it should be with the intent to jointly commit a specific crime by using another person's act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below failed to report the victim's head to get off the victim's head by taking advantage of the victim's head at the location in this case B, and it can not be acknowledged that the victim's head was born out of the body.

According to the above facts, the defendant transferred his intention to inflict injury on the victim by using the above acts in B.

As a result, the intention of co-processing is recognized, and in addition, I think that the defendant is influence B in order to take time the victim and that B when the victim is influent disease.