A. Whether the principal can be established even if the principal has already passed a resolution to commit a crime (negative)

(b) the means and method of the teacher and the specific degree of crime;

(c) The case holding that it is reasonable that a person, who has acquired stolens 19 times from the thiefs, had the thiefs a thief to the thiefs, and told the thief to the effect that the thiefs “highly thiefs” would be a thief.

D. Whether a principal offender has committed a crime (affirmative) in a case where the principal offender committed a crime as well as a criminal habition of the principal offender (affirmative)

A. The crime of aiding and abetting another person (principal) shall be established when the crime of aiding and abetting another person (principal) to commit the crime, and the principal shall pass a resolution to commit the crime by inducing the principal to commit the crime. Therefore, if the principal has already passed a resolution to commit the crime, there is no room for the principal to establish the crime of aiding and abetting.

B. Although it is difficult to become an act of aiding and abetting another person to commit a certain crime, such as “taking off a crime” or “thief,” it is an act of causing another person to commit a certain crime. As such, there is no restriction on the method of inducing another person to commit a crime. Therefore, in order to establish a crime of aiding and abetting another by specifying detailed matters, such as the date, time, place, and method of the crime, there is no need to instigate another person to commit the crime, and the principal offender is established if it leads to the degree of resolution to commit a certain crime.

C. In a case where the Defendant: (a) purchased stolen stolen goods stolen by Gap, Eul, and Byung at prices of 1/3 to 19 times habitually, and acquired them at prices of 1/4 of the market price; (b) sold one Japanese-doraba to Gap, and Eul; and (c) stated that “if the Defendant is detained and escaped, if he/she does not escape, he/she would need money, he/she shall be held to do so.” The purport of the foregoing should be deemed to have been that he/she would purchase stolen goods if he/she continues to larceny to the extent that he/she had been concurrently imposed on the previous branch, and that he/she was a larceny.

D. Since it is not necessary to be the sole condition that a teacher commits a crime, insofar as the principal offender has been resolved to commit the crime, it does not affect the establishment of the principal offender, even if the principal offender has a habiting wall of the crime, and the principal offender has committed the crime as well as the habiting wall, even if the principal offender has been decided to commit the crime.

(c)Article 31(c) of the Criminal Code; Article 331 of the Criminal Code;

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jung-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 90No3952 delivered on February 1, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

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

The defendant and public defender's grounds of appeal are also examined.

In full view of the statements in the court of first instance and the court of first instance in the court of first instance and the court of first instance in regard to the part claiming the violation of the rules of evidence and the incomplete hearing, all of the evidence cited by the court of first instance in the court of first instance and the court of first instance in relation to the part concerning the defendant's assertion of the facts charged in this case, we affirm the reasoning of the court below's opinion that all of the facts charged in this case can be recognized, and there is no

In this case, although 1 or 2, unlike the statement of the first instance court to the court of first instance, the court below stated that the defendant did not receive divers from the defendant, or that divers were not subjected to divers, or that divers were not submitted as evidence, the court below's fact-finding cannot be said to be unlawful, and in the court of first instance to the law, the court of first instance cannot request the investigation of new evidence.

In addition, it cannot be deemed unlawful that the court below's seizure one and one synthetic compound (Evidence No. 13,14) as one of the evidence cannot be deemed unlawful, and even if not admitted as evidence, it does not interfere with the fact-finding like the court below, and there is no illegality in finding that the court below recognized that the defendant was aware that he was stolen. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

As to the part of claiming the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the thief, it is established when another person (principal) passed a resolution to commit the crime, and the thief must pass a resolution to commit the crime by the stief. Therefore, if the stief has already passed a resolution to commit the crime, it is not enough to establish the stief, and it is also insufficient to say that the stief is "hing to commit the crime" or "hing to commit the theft." However, even if that is, it is an act that causes another person to pass a resolution to commit a certain crime, it is not limited to the means of the stief, and the stief does not need to be the only condition that the stief commits the crime.

Examining the record in this case, it is not recognized that Co-defendant 1 and 2, who is the principal, had already passed a resolution for the larceny under paragraphs (1) and (2) of Article 2-2 of the judgment prior to the defendant's larceny.

In addition, if the defendant habitually purchased stolen stolens by Co-Defendant 1, 2, and 3 at the price of 19% or 1/4 of the market price, and acquired them at the price of 19 minutes or 1/4 of the market price, Co-Defendant 1 and 2. When Co-Defendant 3 went to and from the custody of Co-Defendant 3, the defendant stated that "if Co-Defendant 3 goes to and goes to the police, it is necessary to pay the money, and if you go to go to the police, it shall be deemed that he continued to buy the stolens within the scope as Co-Defendant 3, and if you want to purchase them, it shall be deemed that there was a larceny teacher. Specifically, it cannot be said that the defendant's speech was not specified as larceny at the house of anyone at any time, in any way, and it cannot be said that the defendant's act of blocking it is too difficult to establish a theft crime.

In order for the crime to be established, it is not necessary to induce the principal to specify the detailed matters such as the date, time, place, method, etc. of the crime, and if the principal offender leads to the degree of resolution to commit a certain crime, the principal offender shall be established.

In addition, it is not necessary to be the only condition that the teacher of the principal commits the crime, so long as the principal offender has passed a resolution to commit the crime through the act of teachers, the establishment of the principal offender is not affected even in the case where the principal offender has committed the crime with the habit of the crime, and the act of the principal has caused it with the habit of the crime.

Therefore, even though Co-defendant 1 and 2 had a habit of larceny and had committed several larcenys before the Defendant’s school building, insofar as the Defendant had instigated them to thief while driving a thief and instigated them to thief, it cannot be said that the Defendant simply gave the motive for the larceny.

It cannot be said that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a teacher's crime in the judgment below, and there is no reason for discussion.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of 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 Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)