All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles acknowledged the fact that the Defendant participated in the commission of robbery by the Defendant, but did not directly inflict an injury on the victim, so it is difficult to impose liability for the crime of robbery only on the part of the Defendant. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant C1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles actively refused and met the proposal of the crime by the accused, and the functional control of the act, which is an objective requirement of the co-principal in light of the degree of participation, is lacking. Thus, only the aiding and abetting of the robbery, injury, and robbery reserve is established, and it is difficult to hold the Defendant accountable for the co-principal. 2) The sentencing of the lower court of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A and C

A. In order to constitute a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act with regard to the establishment of joint principal offender, subjective requirements include the intent of joint process and objective requirements, which require the fact of execution of a crime through functional control based on the joint principal’s intent. The intent of joint process is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime but to accept it without restraint, and it is sufficient to jointly perform a specific criminal act with the intention of joint principal offender, and to shift one’s own will to the execution of one’s own act by using another’s act.

In addition, when one of the competitors has left from the relation of the contest before the other competitors reach the action of the contest, he shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the subsequent acts of the other competitors. However, the deviation from the relation of the contest is a functional control over the conduct taken by the contest.