특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor of the Reasons for Appeal, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant conspired with the deceased E to commit fraud, such as the entry of the facts charged in the instant case, and even if so, it is not so.
Even if the defendant's act constitutes at least aiding and abetting the deceased's fraud.
However, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. We examine ex officio the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio.
In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor has maintained the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) as the primary charge and applied for the amendment of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud) in addition to the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (Fraud). Since this court
However, the prosecutor's assertion on the primary facts charged of this case is still subject to the judgment of the court, despite the reason for ex officio destruction.
3. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. In light of the various circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in its holding, the lower court seems to have known that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant would dispose of each real estate recorded in the facts charged without the resolution of the clan Assembly, i.e., his father, and that he was involved in the actual disposal process. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to hold the Defendant liable to the Defendant as a co-principal of the fraud, such as the instant facts charged, and further, the Defendant’s intent for co-processing and the Defendant’s functional control is based on its functional control.