The judgment below

Of them, the part of the case against the defendant D is reversed.

Defendant

D. A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s sentence of imprisonment (two years and six months) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing)’s sentence (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(c)

Defendant

C (unfair sentencing) The sentence of the lower court (one year and two months) is too unreasonable.

(d)

Defendant

D1) The lower court found Defendant D guilty of all the facts charged against Defendant D, although he/she went away from the public invitation relationship with Defendant A, B, and C after December 2016, and did not participate in any further crime. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

E. The sentence against the Defendants by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination of the misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding Defendant D’s assertion 1) When one of the solicitors has left the public contest relationship before the others reach the commission of the contest, he shall not be held liable as a joint principal offender with respect to the subsequent acts of the competitors. However, the deviation from the public contest relationship is necessary to resolve the functional control of the competitor’s conduct conducted by the contest. Thus, when the competitor participated in the public contest led to the conclusion of the commission of the other competitors, he/she left the public contest relationship unless he/she has removed the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to stop the crime.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that convicted Defendant D of all the charges is just and acceptable. In so doing, it is so decided by the assent of all participating Justices.