Degree of the facts charged against aiding and abetting a crime

The charge refers to a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for special composition of a crime and the indictment requires the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts that are the cause of the prosecution to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts with regard to the description of the charge, so in stating the facts charged by an aiding and abetting offender, the detailed facts that meet the composition of the principal offender, which

Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Do715 delivered on May 25, 1982, 82Do2840 Delivered on December 27, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Bylaw et al. and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 87No3340 delivered on January 14, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

We examine the grounds for appeal by the attorney Gap and both of the defendant's and his defense counsel.

(1) The original facts charged refer to a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for special composition of a crime, and the indictment requires the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts underlying the crime in the indictment to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts in the indictment. In the indictment of an aiding and abetting offender, it shall be deemed that there is a statement of specific facts that meet the requirements for the principal offender's crime composition, which is the premise, in stating the facts charged, (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do715, May 25, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 82Do2840, Dec. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Do2840, Dec. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 82Do2840, Dec. 27, 1983; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1550, Jun. 24, 2007).

The issue is groundless.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the judgment of the court below, each crime committed against the defendant is legally recognized and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake of facts, incomplete deliberation, insufficient reasoning or aiding and abetting due to violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

The issue is groundless.

(3) In this case where a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 6 months has been imposed at the court below, it is obvious that the determination of a sentence cannot be considered as a legitimate ground of appeal pursuant to Article 383 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the issue cannot be accepted.

The issue is groundless.

(4) Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)