사기등
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, Defendants 1 and misunderstanding of the legal principles did not agree to pay the principal of, or the amount exceeding, the invested money at the time of receiving the subscription money from the victims, and the Defendants did not receive money under the pretext of the subscription fee by deceiving the victims as if they did not have the intent or ability to pay the subscription fee and the subscription fee to the victims in a normal manner.
Therefore, the Defendants cannot be deemed to have committed a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Similar Receiving Acts or a crime of fraud.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2) The sentence of the lower court (Defendant A: one year and six months of imprisonment; two years of imprisonment; and Defendant C: five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence against the Defendants in the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control by the intent to co-processing and the intent to engage in a functional control by the joint principal offender. As such, a person who did not directly share and implement the constituent requirements among the competitors may be held liable for the so-called crime as a joint principal offender depending on whether the above requirements are met.
On the other hand, in order to be recognized as a joint principal offender for the entire crime, there is a functional control through substantial contribution to the crime, not just a simple person, but also a functional control over the crime in order to be recognized as a joint principal offender.