사기등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
The defendant pays 17,00,000 won to H who is an applicant for compensation.
3.2
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant alleged misconception of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are merely a collection measure under which the Defendant performed simple duties under the direction of the instant Bophishing organization, and the Defendant did not forge the instant forged document.
The court below recognized the defendant, who is mere aiding and abetting the crime of this case, as a co-principal. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles on co-principal or aiding and abetting, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the circumstances that led to the instant crime, etc., the Defendant’s participation in the crime was insignificant and difficult, the lower court’s imprisonment (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Regarding the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant provided his photograph to be attached to the "Financial Support Bureau E" employee certificates of each of the forged documents of this case, and the defendant printed out and created in writing the electronic files of each of the falsified documents of this case using a flter. ② The defendant used each of the falsified documents of this case to make the victim B mistake that the victim B would be responsible for the actual employee of the Financial Supervisory Service. ③ The defendant was in charge of collecting the acquired money deposited in the O account by sharing the act of execution while he was aware that the flishing organization knew that the flishing organization was deceiving the victim H, and the defendant was in charge of collecting the money by taking part in the act of execution, and used 17,000,000,000 won out of the acquired money for personal purpose. ④ In full view of these facts, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant had a functional control over the joint processing and the act of this case based on the intention of this case.
Therefore, the defendant is a co-principal of the crime of this case.