beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노3682

사기

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, Nos. 1 attached to the judgment of the first instance court

2. Although the Defendant had the phone call directly concerning the crime recorded, the Defendant did not directly induce the victims by walking the phone in relation to the remaining crimes.

Therefore, the defendant does not have a direct telephone Nos. 1, 3, 1, 3

4. Application of the criminal liability to the defendant for each of the crimes described above to the criminal defendant is unfair since it excessively expands the scope of punishment.

② In particular, since March 23, 2016, the Defendant started deception by telephone at the place of crime from March 23, 2016, the same sight table.

1. It is clear that the Defendant did not participate in the crime.

B. The punishment of punishment for one of the wrongful sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act, which is a joint principal offender, commits a crime jointly with two or more persons. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, it is necessary to have committed a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective element, and the joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act, and to shift his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001). In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the appellate court, the Defendant may be recognized by acquiring KRW 92,147,000,000 in total, in collusion with the other scambling staff, such as the Chinese Call Center’s total book D, etc., for four times as indicated in the facts charged.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

(1) The Defendant, at the Chinese call center, shall make a deception by telephone at the Chinese call center, which is the Chinese call center, from the total book D of the Chinese call center.