특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, B, and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In fact, Defendant A only lent the name of the president of the instant association, and there was no conspiracy between Defendant B and each of the instant hospitals, soliciting patients for profit, and soliciting the crime of deceptionation of expenses for medical care and medical benefits, and there was no intent to commit such crime, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of all the facts charged against Defendant A. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.
B. Although items 1 through 88 of evidence seized by misunderstanding the legal principles are all subject to forfeiture, the judgment of the court below which partially forfeited from Defendant B is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to forfeiture.
(c)
The sentencing of the lower court (A, B, and Prosecutor) is unfair because the sentencing of the lower court (i.e., one year and six months of imprisonment; 2 years of suspended execution; 2 years and six months of imprisonment; and 3 months of fine; 700,000 won of fine) is too heavy or uneasible.
2. Determination
A. Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts does not require any legal punishment, but sufficient contact is made directly or indirectly between the accomplices who intend to jointly commit a crime, and it may be recognized by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules without any direct evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do3169, Mar. 9, 199; 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004). A joint commission of a crime by conspiracy is not premised on the fulfillment of the requirements for a crime by all accomplices, and it is possible to cooperate with the accomplices who realize the crime to strengthen their decision on the act, and whether it falls under such requirements should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the degree of understanding the result of the act, the degree of participation in the act, the scale of control over the act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2636, Dec. 26, 200).