logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2013.03.28 2012노5189
사기방조
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When misunderstanding of facts C and victim D (hereinafter “victim”) possessed the instant plaque and found it in F’s “F” bank for the Defendant’s operation, the victim does not have the original copy by asking the Defendant whether or not the instant plaque is a fake, and the Defendant merely stated the price where the instant plaque is a fake, and the Defendant did not assist the Defendant in deceiving the victim by deceiving the victim, but did not have aiding and abetting the defrauded to defraud the money, the lower court convicted the Defendant of this case’s charges. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending of facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The misunderstanding of legal principles requires the intention of aiding and abetting a principal offender and the principal offender’s act constitutes an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, even though the Defendant did not have the principal offender’s intention, the lower court was punished as a principal offender. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Even if the Defendant’s conviction is recognized, the lower court’s punishment (basic fine of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following facts are revealed: (a) C requested the purport that “F” in the name of “F” in the operation of the Defendant in Pyeongtaek-si on September 15, 2010, to the effect that “(C) a person to lend money to the Defendant, as if he was a fake bail, and a written appraisal of the amount of KRW 5 to 60,000,000,000,000,000 won, as if he was a fake bail”; (b) C possessed the instant plaque he possessed by himself and found it to “F” with the victim around September 15, 2010, and the Defendant requested a simplified appraisal on whether the price of the instant plaque was the price of the instant tablet, and the Defendant was one of the plaque in light of light.

arrow