19-year-old student of Tulupov Law Institute

A 19-year-old student at the Tulupov Law Institute, experiencing financial difficulties, decided to "get rich" by robbery at a trading kiosk of a familiar businessman Ulanov. Thinking over the plan for committing the crime, he came to the conclusion that it was possible to carry out the plan only as part of a group of three people.
In the course of criminal law, Tulupov had already studied the topic of “complicity in a crime” and knew that committing a crime by a group of persons by prior conspiracy entails a more severe punishment than an individually committed crime. At the same time, he knew that the subject of the crime stipulated by Article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation is a person who has reached the age of 14 years, therefore, he committed 13-year-old Fazanov and 13-year-old Tsaplin to commit sambo athletes, promising them a “share” of stolen property.
Tulupov developed an attack plan, distributed roles, instructed Fazanov and Tsaplin how to behave at the crime scene and subsequent actions, provided them with information about Ulanov, the mode of operation of his trading kiosk and his valuable property, and the means of protection.
On the appointed day, Fazanov and Tsaplin made the planned robbery.
Tulupov was convicted under part 3 of article 162 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for robbery committed with illegal entry into the premises by a group of persons by prior conspiracy.
Is the court decision justified?
Determine that Tulupov did not take into account, wondering why he was convicted, if he did not participate in the attack, did not get into the kiosk, and Fazanov and Tsaplin did not give him the stolen property.
Will the qualifications of the deed Tulupov change if it is established that Tulupov participated in the robbery together with Fazanov and Tsaplin?