beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant C and D shall be reversed.
Defendant
C 4 years of imprisonment and 2 years of imprisonment for Defendant D.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant D’s misunderstanding of the facts by Defendant D merely served as a counselor, and was functional control over the instant crime.
As such, the above defendant cannot be seen as having been in Korea.
Crimes committed between August 29, 2014 and September 20, 2014 (crimes 17-23 of sight table (5)) are not established.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendants’ unfair sentencing (2 years and six months of imprisonment; 1 year and two months of imprisonment; 3 years of imprisonment for Defendant C; 3 years of imprisonment for Defendant D) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of Bosing, such as the instant case, is thoroughly divided in order to avoid the crackdown by the investigative agency, and all accomplices in charge of each function are closely connected to each other. Therefore, if a certain role is not performed properly, it is impossible to expect the success of the crime, and eventually, the accomplices in charge of each role play a functional control over the act through an essential contribution to the Bosing crime.
must be viewed.
According to evidence, the above defendant used personal information by telephone to the victims.
The “one-line counselor” who provides the information to “two-line counselors” after ascertaining the personal information of the victimized person by making a false statement, and contributed to the essential part of the instant Bosing crime.
full recognition may be accepted.
Meanwhile, according to the above defendant's entry and departure status, it is recognized that the above defendant entered Korea on August 28, 2014 and departed from China again on September 21, 2014. However, even if the defendant's statement was based on the above defendant's statement, the reason for entering Korea during the crime was to be re-issued, and that the defendant left China for committing the crimes of Bosing. Thus, the defendant was staying in Korea for a certain period.
The above defendant is functionally responsible for the defendant.