[사기,사기미수,폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반,모욕][공1988.5.1.(822),729]
A. Whether the co-principal was established in the event that there was a contact among accomplices but only a part of them was committed in the commission of the crime;
B. The elements of the crime of attempted fraud
A. In order to establish a joint principal offender, all the accomplices are not necessarily required to participate in the commission of the crime, and at least there is an intent to jointly process the crime among the accomplices, i.e., where there is a communication among the accomplices and part of the accomplices are committed, the crime should be committed as a joint principal offender, and the person who does not share the act of the joint principal offender directly shall be liable as a joint principal offender with respect to the whole crime.
B. The crime of attempted fraud is sufficient if there is a fact that the other party uses a deceptive means to mislead the other party by mistake in order to receive property or to acquire property benefits, and if the other party fails to achieve the purpose by failing to omit it, it constitutes the crime of attempted fraud. Therefore, the so-called crime of attempted fraud, for which the defendant again demanded the victim who had already acquired the money before, to use the money,
A. Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 347 and 352 of the Criminal Act
A. Supreme Court Decision 83Do1942 delivered on October 11, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 86Do2133 delivered on March 8, 1988 (dong)
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Cho Byung-hee
Gwangju District Court Decision 1987No907 Decided November 6, 1987
The appeal is dismissed.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to fraud;
Comprehensively taking account of the enjoyion cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence such as the theory
In order to establish a joint principal offender, where all accomplices do not necessarily need to participate in the act of committing a crime, and at least there is an intention to jointly process a crime between accomplices, namely, where there is contact with one another, and part of the accomplices have committed a crime, all the accomplices have committed a crime as a joint principal offender, and a person who does not share the act of committing a crime directly shall be held liable as a joint principal offender (see Supreme Court Decision 83Do1942, Oct. 11, 1983, etc.).
In the same purport, the court below is just in finding the facts of the defendant's conspiracy and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit.
2. As to the attempted fraud:
The crime of attempted fraud is sufficient if there is a fact that the other party uses a deceitful means to mislead the other party in order to receive property or to acquire property benefits, and if the other party fails to achieve the purpose by failing to omit it in mistake, it constitutes the crime of attempted fraud.
The court below's decision is justified in imposing the so-called "the crime of attempted fraud" to the victim who had already acquired the money prior to the fraud, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no violation of the law of misunderstanding the legal principles.
3. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and insult
In full view of the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below, it is sufficient to recognize the criminal facts of the defendant as stated in its judgment, and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence
4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)