logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.20 2016노968
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to fraud during the instant crime, the Defendant: (a) released the sum of KRW 5.9 million on July 16, 2015; and (b) KRW 4.6 million on October 2, 2015; (c) as such, the Defendant conspireds for fraud with respect to the remainder of the money obtained by deception other than the money so withdrawn.

In particular, with respect to the remitted money on July 15, 2015 and the remitted money on July 17, 2015, the Defendant was committed before the Defendant participated in the Bosing crime or after the Defendant withdraws from Bosing crime.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. In the case of accomplices who are jointly processed by two or more persons on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize such crime, and thus, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.

Even if there is a conspiracy between several persons in a successive or secret manner and a combination of the doctors, a conspiracy relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the execution should be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another person (Supreme Court Decision 2000Do3483, Nov. 10, 200). Taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the Defendant conspired to acquire money from the victims through C prior to the commencement of the deposit of the money received by the instant case.

Since then, the defendant was absent from the above open recruitment relationship.

There is no data to see that the defendant is liable for the entire money obtained by the victims of this case as a joint principal offender as well as the money actually withdrawn by the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's status.

arrow