The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, who was aware of the fact that he was the singishing crime, did not intend to commit the singishing crime, but did not intend to commit the singishing crime with the victim's property in accordance with the direction of the person who was not aware of the fact that he was the singishing crime.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a 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, a subjective element is required to commit a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is an objective element, and a joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). Such a joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient solely with recognizing another person’s criminal act without restraint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do576, Apr. 7, 200). However, there is no need to establish a joint principal offender’s plan to commit a crime closely established in advance, and there is no need to establish an indirect fact that the criminal accomplice either denies the elements of a crime or bears an objective relation with one’s own act.

At this time, what is the indirect facts or circumstantial facts related to them are based on normal rule of experience.