beta
Text
The judgment below
The remainder, excluding the part of the compensation order, shall be reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles and the facts-finding, the Defendant merely used the Bosing Organization as a mere “ tool to collect money,” and there was no conspiracy to commit the crime of Bosing with the “total liability,” etc. The Defendant did not know that his act was an illegal casino money exchange business, and did not know at all, that his act was an illegal casino money exchange business. Therefore, there was no intention to commit the crime of fraud.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged the defendant as a joint principal offender of fraud and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to intentional and joint principal offenders and in mistake
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine and the assertion of mistake of facts, a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act commits a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary to fact that a crime is committed through functional control by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, by the intention of joint processing and an objective requirement, and the intention of joint process is to be integrated to commit a specific criminal act with the intention of joint principal, and to shift one’s own will to the execution by using another’s act.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant’s intent to commit a crime under Article 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2001, Apr. 7, 2000; Presidential Decree No. 20010, Nov. 2, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 200135, Apr. 2, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 2, 2001; Presidential Decree No. 20135, Apr. 2, 200).
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). (2) In this regard, the lower court properly states.