A person who, with the intent to commit a crime jointly, commits an act which is not an element of the crime or conspires with others before the fact without personally committing the crime is also considered to be a joint offender in the commission of the crime. The purposes and intents of J.Y. Yuan-tze Interpretation No. 1905, No. 2030-1, and the first part of No. 2202 are consistent with this opinion.

　　　 Joint offenders of a crime are persons who jointly commit the crime. With the intent to commit a crime jointly, each joint offender commits his or her part of the crime to accomplish the crime. It is not necessary that all joint offenders commit the same act which is an element of the crime. While a person who commits an act which is an element of the crime is considered a joint offender of the crime, a person who, with the intent to commit the crime jointly, commits an act which is not an element of the crime or conspires with others before the fact without personally committing the crime, is also considered to be a joint offender in the commission of the crime and shall be liable for the consequences of the crime. A person who conspired with others before the fact and obtained illegal gains after the fact without personally committing the crime is held to be a joint offender in the commission of the crime in J.Y. Yuan-tze Interpretation No. 1905. A person who conspired with others before the fact and was posted as a lookout, is held to be a joint offender of the crime in J.Y. Yuan-tze Interpretation No. 2030-1. The first part of J.Y. Yuan-tze Interpretation No. 2202 holds that a chief of police who conspired with a thief to conceal and sell the stolen goods for the thief, is considered to be an accomplice in the theft. However, the chief of police who conspired with a thief to conceal and sell the stolen goods for the thief with an intent to commit the crime jointly is considered to be a joint offender in the commission of the theft. While the wordings in the three aforementioned J.Y. Interpretations are different due to different motions filed by different defendants, the purposes and intents of these judicial opinions are still consistent with the present opinion.