사기미수등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles - Of the facts charged in this case, with respect to the part on the forgery of a private document and the use of a falsified document in the attached crime list (1) Nos. 4, 5, and 6 among the facts charged in this case, the above defendant merely introduced the insurance designerJ, etc. to the defendant A, but did not attend the site at the time of the insurance contract, and there was no prior collusion with the defendant or participation in the crime in relation to this part of the insurance contract.
B. Sentencing - Each punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment for each of the Defendants) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant B’s assertion of mistake is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and its common intent.
The so-called crime liability as a joint principal offender may be imposed even when a person who has not directly shared and implemented part of the constituent requirements among the conspiracys. However, in order to prevent such crime, considering the status, role, control of the progress of the crime, etc. in the entire crime, it should be recognized that there exists a functional control through the essential contribution to the crime rather than just the person who has committed the crime.
In addition, in light of all the circumstances, such as the means and attitudes of the crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and characteristics of the place of the crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, the possibility of anticipated contact with others and anticipated reaction, etc., the conspiracys could have anticipated or sufficiently anticipated that incidental crimes will be derived in order to achieve the purpose of the crime, but they did not take any reasonable measures to prevent it, and they eventually anticipated to commit the crime.