logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.05.22 2019노606
사기방조
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not have any intention to assist the Bosing crime, but there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and thereby affecting the conclusion

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. An act of aiding and abetting a mistake under the Criminal Act refers to a direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. As such, the so-called aiding and abetting a principal offender’s commission and the principal offender’s commission of the principal offender’s commission of an act that constitutes the elements of a crime should have the principal offender’s intent to commit an act. However, in the event that the principal offender denies such an act, such intent is an in-depth fact, and such intent

However, in the case of aiding and abetting, the intention of the principal offender is not required to identify the detailed contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusence or prediction.

In light of the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the record, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was at least aware of, or foreseeable for, the crime of Bosing. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in this case is justifiable, and it cannot be said that there was an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

① Although the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement in the appellate trial, the Defendant consistently stated that the instant crime was likely to be related to the singishing crime from the investigation stage to the original trial, and it is difficult to find any circumstances to suspect the credibility of the said statement.

② On February 2, 2018, among the instant crimes.

arrow