A. The timing of acceptance in fraud, such as a misunderstanding of legal principles or computer, is when pecuniary gains have been acquired, and in this case, the victim acquired pecuniary gains by transferring money from his account in the name of the victim to the so-called passbook account.

I would like to say.

However, the Defendant performed only the role of delivering money again from D who received money from J, a name of the passbook of this case, to the remittance book. As such, the Defendant merely performed the role of simply delivering criminal proceeds after the occurrence of fraud such as computer, etc. was established.

Therefore, the defendant's act cannot be viewed as a joint principal offender or a succeeded joint principal offender for fraud, such as the computer of this case, and it is reasonable to view the defendant's act as an aiding and abetting act to facilitate the performance of organized crimes

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on common principals, etc., thereby finding guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the misunderstanding of the legal principles 1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary for a joint principal offender to engage in a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act. Such a joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act and not to restrain it. However, it is not necessary to offer a prior criminal plan, and each of the accomplices is in essence related to the elements or composition of the joint principal offender.