All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles merely responded to “Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, and did not instruct a crime at the scene of the crime. As such, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendant conspiredd with A and committed these crimes even though the Defendant did not have functional control through an essential contribution to each of the instant crimes, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and

B. Defendant A’s sentence (two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution, and 120 hours of community service order) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. A co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. The so-called crime liability as a co-principal may be imposed depending on the case where part of the elements of a crime is not carried out by himself/herself. However, in light of the position and role of the co-principal in the whole crime or the control of the progress of the crime or the influence of the crime, etc., it should not be deemed that the functional control exists by the inherent contribution to the crime, not just the co-principal.

In this case, the method and form of crime, the number of participants and their tendency, the time and characteristics of the place of crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of crime, and anticipated reaction with others.