beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.
except that this judgment.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. As to Defendant A’s fraud aiding and abetting, Defendant A did not have the intention to commit fraud with respect to the payment of KRW 5.3 billion to the N’s account in the name of N, not the account in the name of Defendant A, from the victim L to the account in the name of KRW 5.33 million and Q, respectively.
In addition, the sentence of the court below (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B’s imprisonment (one year and eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
C. The Prosecutor’s sentence against Defendant B by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below on the assertion of the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A’s fraudulent aiding and abetting, Defendant A received a text message from an unqualified person that “on the face of lending the passbook, I would pay a monthly fee.” The court below knew that Defendant A was using the Defendant’s name account, other than the Defendant, in order to induce the victim to L, and that Defendant A was paid KRW 5,370,000 to Q Q bank account from February 6, 2018 to February 7, 2018; KRW 4670,000 to Q bank account; and KRW 66,000,000 to the Defendant’s name bank account under the Defendant’s name. However, the evidence alone is recognized that Defendant A was aware that the above named person was deceiving the victim L, and Defendant A was using the Defendant’s named person account other than the Defendant.
It is insufficient to deem that it was easy or easy, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.
From February 6, 2018 to February 7, 2018, the fact that the above person in fact was accused of the victim L and received money through several accounts constitutes a blanket crime. However, since a single act or a number of independent crimes were legally realized, it is possible to establish an accomplice only for a part of a blanket crime according to the degree of the accomplice's intention and participation. In light of these legal principles, the above fact is viewed as above.