(a) The spirit and the spirit of a co-principal with an implied intention;

(b) Time of acceptance in the case of defraudation of securities;

(a) In the establishment of a co-principal, it is sufficient to agree not only with accomplices in advance, but also with the intent to realize a co-principal's intent through mutual cooperation in cancer.

(b) In cases where securities, such as the number of units, are acquired through fraud, issuance of securities;

It shall be the number of property taking at the stage of receipt.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 347 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 82Do1818 delivered on October 26, 1982

Defendant 1 and eight others-Appellants

Attorney Lee Lee-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 85No1879 delivered on September 19, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

From among the days pending trial after appeal, 90 days shall be included in the corresponding principal sentence for each of 90 days against Defendant 1, 2, and 3.

Each of the grounds of appeal by the Defendants, Defendant 1, etc. is examined together.

According to the evidence at the time of the first instance judgment maintained by the court below and the evidence at the time of the judgment of the court below, each of the decisions against the defendants was lawful, and there was no error of law by failing to conduct a deliberation like the theory of lawsuit or by misunderstanding facts contrary to the rules of evidence. In the establishment of a joint principal offender, not only when there is a mother among the accomplices, but also when there is an intention to realize a joint principal offender through cooperation with the secret, it is sufficient (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1818, Oct. 26, 1982). Accordingly, according to the above evidence, the above evidence, the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and separated defendant 8 are the recovery property of the State, and it is sufficient to view that there is no error of law as to the above joint principal offender's relation with the above defendants, since it is sufficient to see that the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 321.

In the case of acquiring through deception securities such as the check of the number of units, etc. by fraud, it is reasonable to place the Defendants’ act of receiving the original check, etc. as fraud in the same purport. The assertion that sentencing is excessive is not a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. Regarding Defendants 1, 2, and 3, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence against the above Defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)