사기
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The punishment of the accused shall be determined by eight months of imprisonment.
except that this judgment.
1. The decision of the court of this case on February 2, 201, on the ground that there was no functional control over any functional control over any act, especially 36.5 million won issued by the victim for the first time from the victim, since the defendant was unaware of the fact that C and D had deceiving the victim F by deceiving him, not only was there a conspiracy, but also could not be viewed as deceiving the victim by the criminal intent of defraudation, and since he did not have any functional control over it, there was no functional control over it, and in particular, it should be deducted from the amount obtained through deceit of this case) and unfair sentencing.
A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the conspiracy is not a legally required type of punishment, but a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons and co-processing a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in a successive and implicit manner, then the conspiracy is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do9721, Dec. 22, 201). Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting all the subjective and objective requirements, such as the commission of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and its common intent. Although some of the conspiracys do not directly share part of the elements of a crime and implement it, if it is acknowledged that there is a functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime rather than a mere conspiracy, in full view of the status, role, control over the progress of the crime, influence of the crime, etc., the so-called co-principal is not exempt from the so-called co-principal.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do2021 Decided May 13, 2011, etc.). (2) In light of such legal principles, the first instance court duly adopted and investigated the statements of witnesses, witnesses D, C, and F.