사기
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment of 10 months, Defendant B’s fine of 5,00,000 won, and Defendant C’s fine of 5.0
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant C made a false statement to the victim J that “The contract was concluded because it was 10% by paying a down payment of KRW 7 million,” and as such, even though he did not pay a down payment of KRW 7 million, Defendant B’s order issued a receipt to the victim as if he paid the down payment of KRW 7 million to the victim, and the victim had the victim entered into the instant contract as if he paid the down payment of the victim’s down payment. In light of the above acts of Defendant C, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant C’s criminal intent can be sufficiently recognized, and thereby acquitted the Defendant C, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (ten months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) on Defendant A’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against Defendant A is too uneased and unreasonable.
C. The sentence (two million won of fine) imposed by the lower court on Defendant B by asserting unfair sentencing on Defendant B is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts against Defendant C, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Code of the relevant legal doctrine is a crime committed jointly by two or more persons, and the offender’s intent of co-processing is a subjective element. However, the intent of co-processing is the recognition of the co-processing in order to move one’s own intent to implement a specific criminal act with one another. The intent of the co-processing is a common opinion with one another in cancer, and it does not necessarily require any kind of conspiracy in advance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Do985, Jun. 11, 1991; 2004Do4437, Oct. 28, 2004); and there is no interference with the establishment of co-principal as long as the co-processing was jointly processed with the criminal act between the persons with the upper and lower-ranking relation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do10137, Jan. 27, 2012).