beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.04.09 2019노7194

사기

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months.

Defendant

B.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B (A) In misunderstanding of the legal principle, Defendant B did not recognize the illegality of one’s own act at the time of the instant crime, but did not recognize that he was involved in the instant crime, thereby constituting a joint principal offender in fraud. Therefore, Defendant B cannot be deemed to constitute a joint principal offender in fraud.

B) In addition, the victim’s damage amount was divided into several accounts, and since the damage amount was withdrawn through a separate deception against the account holder again from each of the above accounts, it shall be deemed that each account holder constituted a separate crime. However, the Defendant was involved only in the part of the damage amount deposited in H account. However, there was no fact that the Defendant was arrested during the collection and thereafter participated in the damage amount under the table 7 and 8 of the crime sight table in the judgment of the court below, and there was no responsibility for the part concerning the damage amount under the table 7 and 8 of the crime sight table in the above crime sight table. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant A (unfair punishment)’s imprisonment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s appeal

A. 1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to whether a joint principal offender is constituted against Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) is mutually consistent with Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) that, on the following grounds, even if Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not explicitly gather in advance with the employees of the Defendant B (hereinafter “Defendant”) about the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of