beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.01 2019노1713

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant did not know that his act constitutes a so-called “phishing” fraud, and thus, there was no intention or conspiracy of fraud, and as to the violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act, the Defendant did not keep the check card, which is the means of access, for the purpose of using it for the crime, on the same reason.

2. Determination

A. In the relation of co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime by more than two relevant legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize such crime.

Even if there was no overall mother process, if there was a combination of doctors either successively or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the person is held liable as a co-principal for the conduct of the other conspiracy.

(1) In the event of a co-principal, a co-principal’s intent to commit a crime is not sufficient to recognize the crime committed by another and to accept such intent without any restriction. However, there is a mutual agreement between the accomplice and his/her accomplice that he/she does not need to obtain prior approval of the plan to commit a crime, and each co-principal bears the elements of a crime or share the actions in essence related to the elements of a crime.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). Meanwhile, the willful negligence, unlike gross negligence, has the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, the intention of deliberation to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime is required.

The form of an act and the situation of an act that was disclosed outside without depending on the statement of the actor as to whether the actor allowed the possibility of the occurrence of the crime.