logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.05.10 2016노192
사기
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (unfair sentencing)’s punishment of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles are not specified by the competitors, and the contents of the recruitment are not specified, and there is no omission or omission of the subject of deception, the other party, or the contents in relation to the remaining victims except for some victims.

2) In fact, the Defendant was merely engaged in the purchase and division of the instant land, and did not invite the instant crime with Defendant A or other consultants, etc., and did not engage in deception.

3) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. If the combination of intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, a person who does not directly participate in the conduct is held liable as a joint principal offender for the conduct of other accomplices.

Therefore, the joint principal offender of fraud was unaware of the method of deception in detail.

Even if a public-private partnership cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In a public-private partnership principal offender, it is not necessary to make a detailed judgment on the mother's specific date, time, place, contents, etc., and the mere fact that the agreement with the intent to commit the crime has been reached is determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In addition, Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act clearly states the date, place, and method of the crime.

arrow