자동차관리법위반등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. As to the violation of the Motor Vehicle Management Act among the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant merely informed D of the name influor who can forge the vehicle number plate, and there was a co-processing intent to take part in the crime of forging D and name in the crime of forging D and name influor.
The defendant cannot be seen as a joint principal offender for the crime of forging a motor vehicle number plate, since he did not participate in any action of the above Article, the defendant cannot be punished as a joint principal offender.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of the Automobile Management Act.
2. Determination
A. In the case of accomplices who are jointly processed by two or more persons of the relevant legal principles, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is merely a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime through joint processing of the crime, and a conspiracy of intent is established if the combination of intent is carried out in order or impliedly through the process of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In addition, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements of crime, such as the intent of joint processing and the functional control over the crime through functional control based on their common intent. Even if a person is not carried out by directly sharing part of the elements of the conspiracy, the lower court’s judgment is not merely a mere conspiracy, but also a functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime by another person, taking into account the following factors: (i) the adoption of evidence as a joint principal offender and evidence of the crime by another person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20137Do1707.