사기등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and four months.
A person who directly commits fraud at a foreign website while misunderstanding the legal principles on the gist of the grounds for appeal (the point of fraud) and directly commits fraud is a person who is not the defendant's name but the defendant sent a photograph of passbook, security card, identification card, etc. to a person who is not the defendant, and there is no other reason to take part in the above fraud crime.
Although the defendant's act should be assessed as aiding and abetting fraud, the court below judged the defendant as a joint principal offender in fraud. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal offender, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
Sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
Judgment
The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which is determined as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the intent of joint processing. In the case where some of the competitors have not directly shared and executed the constituent requirements.
Even in light of the overall criminal status, role, control or power over the progress of the crime, etc., if it is recognized that the functional control through essential contribution to the crime exists, rather than a mere conspiracy, the so-called joint principal offender cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do321, May 21, 1998; 2007Do428, Apr. 26, 2007). Taking into account the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant and the person without the name of the deceased was an implied and orderly combination of intentions with respect to the crime of this case, and the defendant had functional control over the crime of this case by fundamental contribution to the crime of this fraud.
Since the judgment of the court below can be determined by a person, it is just and acceptable.