특정경제범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(사기)등
The judgment below
The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.
1. The grounds of appeal are examined.
The lower court determined that the Defendant, as a joint principal offender, was liable for this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant committed functional control over each of the above crimes by making an essential contribution to the relevant crimes, on the grounds that: (a) the Defendant, as a joint principal offender, was in charge of acting as a broker in the entire Gu road for the fraud crime planned by Q, etc.; and (b) the Defendant, as seen above, did not directly constitute the elements for the crime of fraud; (c) the Defendant’s act was essentially related to the deception against the victims of AH and B, etc.; and (d) the Defendant, AH and B, etc. was aware of all such circumstances; and (c) the Defendant, as a joint principal offender, was in charge of functional control over the above crimes by making an essential contribution to the relevant crimes, such as B, etc.
The judgment below
In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements, etc. for establishing a joint principal offender as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
2. The decision shall be made ex officio;
A. Fraud is established by deceiving another person to take advantage of his/her mistake and inducing another person to take advantage of property or gain pecuniary advantage (Article 347(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act). In the context of fraud, the term “misunderstanding” means that the other party misleads the other party to the facts that are the basis of judgment in carrying out a disposal act, and the term “dispositive act” refers to a disposal act that delivers property to the actor, etc. or gives pecuniary advantage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do13024, Jan. 28, 2016). B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the Defendant’s attempted fraud and the part concerning the Defendant’s attempted fraud in collusion with Q, etc. is illegitimate.