beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.03.20 2015노97

사기등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (the fraud described in paragraph (1) of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below) does not constitute a crime of fraud as to the crime committed after August 2, 2014 (the crime committed after August 4, 2014), since the Defendant, on August 1, 2014, expressed his/her intention to waive the charge to a person who was an accomplice (title C), and thereafter secedes from the conspiracy relationship of the fraud of the instant case. As such, the crime after August 2, 2014 (the crime described in attached Table 49 (1) of the List of Crimes (1), Article 50 (1), and (63) (19, August 6, 2014) in the judgment of the court below) is not established.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Where the defendant, who made a judgment on the assertion of mistake of fact, committed part of the crime that was an inclusive crime, and went away from the accomplice relationship, but the remaining crime was committed by another accomplice, the defendant shall also bear the liability for the crime against the portion which the

(1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) obtained a cash card under the name of another person through Kwikset service, reported the quantity of the cards received to the accomplices, and then confirmed whether the cards were carded at close cash withdrawal time; (b) deposited money with the Defendant’s account using the cards directed by the accomplices; and (c) the Defendant participated in the instant crime by depositing money into the Defendant’s account; and (d) the Defendant, on August 2, 2014, proposed that he/she would be safe in the China or the Center because he/she would have been aware that he/she was dangerous to do so; and (d) proposed that he/she would have been aware that he/she would have been working in the China or the Center; and (e) proposed that he/she would have rejected the receipt of the cards from Kwikset through Kwikset service; and (e) proposed that he/she would have retired from the said date.