beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty part shall be reversed.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, three Pampa container and fifteen.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (misunderstanding of facts) 1) Aid and abetting the three embezzlements of Pampling container 1. Since the ownership or right to dispose of the Pampling container in this case is against H, embezzlement cannot be established against H at the beginning, and it is not so.
However, it should be seen that S Co., Ltd., which acquired ownership from H, came to be embezzlement due to the conclusion of the goods supply contract to I.
Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute an act of aiding and abetting law because it constitutes an act after the principal's act is completed.
(2) The defendant is in the position of a guarantor to prevent the embezzlement crime of H of the criminal.
Therefore, the crime of aiding and abetting by omission cannot be established, and since there was no intention to commit a criminal act by H, the crime of aiding and abetting embezzlement cannot be established.
2) Helping and aiding 15 Pampling containers: ① The Defendant was willing to transport from H on November 11, 2015 to a transport company designated by H, thereby being aware of it.
“There is no fact that the horses do not appear.”
② On November 12, 2015, the Defendant did not send an e-mail as if the goods were being properly transported to the victimized company, and even when the time when theO, other than the Defendant, sent e-mail, the e-mail has already been completed. As such, the Defendant’s principal offender’s act cannot be regarded as aiding and abetting the act after the completion.
B. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to indirect principal offenders, on the ground that the Defendant constitutes an indirect principal offender in the storage of stolen goods by taking advantage of I Co., Ltd., a stolen goods, which constitutes an indirect principal offender in the storage of stolen goods, and thus, by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to indirect principal offenders.
2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (five million won in penalty) is too unfluent and unfair.
2. The Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is on the basis of the company’s Form.