Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was merely introducing S to C upon request by C, and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime.
The Defendant did not obtain any economic benefits by committing the instant crime.
Even if the defendant introduced S to C is a crime, aiding and abetting can be limited.B. The punishment that the court below sentenced to the sentencing unfair (the penalty amount of KRW 30 million) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Part 1 of the relevant legal doctrine provides that a joint principal offender under Article 30 of the relevant criminal law commits a crime jointly with two or more accomplices. In order for a joint principal offender to be established, a joint principal offender requires a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is subjective element, and a joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act. A joint principal offender’s intent is to jointly engage in a specific criminal act with another person’s intent and to shift his/her own intent to practice by using another person’s act. Such a joint principal offender’s intent is insufficient to recognize and not to restrain another person’s criminal act. However, there is sufficient understanding that prior conspiracy of a criminal plan does not necessarily require prior recruitment of a joint principal offender or to share an act in essence related to the constituent elements (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008). In addition, a joint principal offender is not a joint principal offender, and if one or more persons jointly engaged in a criminal act with one another’s intent and are not directly engaged in a specific criminal act.