횡령등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal did not introduce AD, in collusion with A, a false vehicle sales on the Internet site or the purchase of a motor vehicle, as “AB director”. However, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in collusion with A that the Defendant posted the history of the motor vehicle and its seller information on the Internet site in a false manner.
2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendants are automobile sales workers belonging to the “G” affiliated with the building of the “G” located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and all partners jointly invest advertising and investment expenses and distribute profits at a certain ratio.
Where a motor vehicle dealer advertises a motor vehicle via the Internet, he/she shall post the matters prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, such as the history and seller information of the motor vehicle, and shall not display it falsely.
On February 2, 2015, the Defendants conspired to publish an advertisement on “AB director,” “AB director,” “AC director,” “accident without accident, odometer 1,242 km,” “31,200,000 won in price,” rather than a motor vehicle actually secured by the Defendants, and provided false information on the history and seller of the motor vehicle.
B. 1) Determination 1) In the case of accomplices who are jointly engaged in a crime by two or more persons, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is sufficient if there is an implied communication between accomplices directly or indirectly with respect to the joint commission of a crime, and even if there is no direct evidence, it can be recognized by the facts and experience rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7625, Feb. 26, 2009). 2) The following circumstances are based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court.