A. In fact-finding, the Defendant did not think that his act was related to the extraction or exchange of bitcoin (so-called “scaming”; hereinafter “scaming”), and did not think that the Defendant’s act was related to the so-called “scaming” (so-called “scaming”), and did not seem to know whether the sending number was fabricated or mediating another’s communications.

Therefore, in relation to fraud, there is no intention to commit fraud by deception against the defendant.

(A) Even if there was the intention to commit fraud, the defendant's act is nothing more than aiding and abetting. There is no intention to commit a crime of violating the Telecommunications Business Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more co-principals under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which jointly commits a crime. In order to constitute a co-principal, a subjective element of co-principal, requires the fact that a crime is committed through functional control by the co-principal, which is an objective requirement, and the intention of co-principal is one of the two to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of co-principal, and the intention of co-processing refers to the movement of one’s own intent by using another’s act

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s intent to commit a crime under Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 17055, Apr. 7, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 20010, Apr. 7, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 220135, Apr. 1, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 22010, Nov. 1, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 22035, Apr. 2, 200).

Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706 Decided September 11, 2008