beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.04.20 2017노3347

특수강도등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-finding (Defendant C) The Defendant conspireds with accomplices to force the operation fund of the illegal gambling site, and there was no conspiracy to force N andO’s property. Rather, in the course of committing the crime, the personal goods of the employees of the illegal gambling site management office are not taken by force.

The legitimacy was also justified.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant's accomplice relation is recognized even with the victim N andO's taking of property as the defendant's accomplice relation is erroneous.

B. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 7 years of imprisonment; Defendant B: 6 years of imprisonment; Defendant C: 4 years of imprisonment; and Defendant D: 3 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts, in light of the method and form of crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, time and characteristics of the place of crime, possibility of contact with others in the course of crime, and anticipated reaction, etc., Defendant C’s joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the conspiracys could have anticipated or sufficiently anticipated that the crime would result in incidental crimes during the course of the commission of the crime or going to the commission of another crime without taking any reasonable measures sufficient to prevent the occurrence of the crime, and eventually, if the crime was anticipated to result in the commission of the crime, the conspiracys did not have any contact with each other.

Even if the initial conspiracys, as well as the functional control over the crime, should be deemed to exist (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do11030, Jan. 27, 201; 2007Do428, Apr. 26, 2007). 2), the lower court determined that the Defendant specifically gathered the victim N andO’s property taking advantage of the victim N andO’s property taking place in advance or directly.