beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2013.08.29 2013노1514

사기

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant B shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment for each of the Defendants, two years of suspended execution) is deemed to be too unhutiled and unfair.

B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are Defendant B’s land in the Jinju-gun of Gyeonggi-gun (hereinafter “Minju-gun”).

(2) The Plaintiff did not engage in the conclusion of the sales contract with the Defendant N, and the Plaintiff’s forest located in the H (hereinafter “use real estate”).

(i) the land located in P in Y and in Ycheon-si (hereinafter referred to as “Tcheon Real Estate”);

(2) The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s punishment is so unreasonable as to be too unreasonable that it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the fact, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant B

A. The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. However, even if a person does not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime, he/she may be held liable for the crime as a co-principal depending on the case. However, in full view of the status and role of the co-principal in the entire crime, control over the progress of the crime, etc., it should be deemed that a person has functional control over the crime by making an essential contribution to the crime rather than a mere conspiracy.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321 delivered on May 21, 1998, etc.). B.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.