beta
Text
All appeals are dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal
A. (1) The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through a functional control based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-principal. The so-called crime liability as a co-principal depending on the case of a person who does not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime among the co-principal. However, for this purpose, in full view of the status, role, control or neglect of the progress of the crime, etc. of the whole crime, the functional control of the act through essential contribution to the crime should not be deemed to exist, rather than just a co-principal, but rather a case where it is deemed that a functional control exists through substantial contribution to the crime.
(2) In light of the general circumstances such as the means and manner of crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, the time and place of the crime, the possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, and anticipated reaction with others, etc., if the conspiracys, who conspired to commit the crime without any reasonable measures sufficient to prevent the occurrence of other incidental crimes in order to perform the crime or achieve the purpose, were to have the possibility of contact with others or to have it anticipated that they would result in other incidental crimes in the course of the crime. However, if the conspiracys were to have committed the crime, without taking any reasonable measures sufficient to prevent the occurrence of such possibility, they would eventually have attempted to commit the crime, even though they were to have been derived from the crime, there was no individual contact with others.
Even if the original conspiracys, it should be deemed that there is a functional control over the whole crime as well as implied conspiracys.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do428 Decided April 26, 2007; 201Do12927 Decided December 22, 201, etc.). (2)