Cases recognized as having the responsibility for the crime of co-principal

In the case of co-principal, even if he does not directly participate in the act of execution after he recruited a criminal act in the co-principal, he cannot be exempted from the liability of co-principal for the act of sharing another co-principal.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Cheongju District Court Decision 67No83 decided July 5, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

The co-principal cannot be exempted from the liability of the co-principal for the act of sharing the shares of other co-offenders even though he did not directly participate in the act of execution after he recruited a criminal act in the co-principal. Thus, as pointed out in the paper, as long as the defendant was assigned to three circles of planning, technical and guidance circles to dispose of his liability for the guidance and debt of the Chungcheong Rural Community Instructor, which is his workplace after April 1965, and the defendant committed the crime in this case, he was assigned to the three circles of planning, technical and guidance circles. The defendant was not assigned to the position on October 10, 1966. The chairperson does not have the authority to approve, and even if the defendant did not prepare the false public document, etc. on the amount equivalent to the number of liability allocated in the guidance and guidance to which the defendant belongs, even if he did not escape from the liability of the co-principal as a co-principal, and it is unreasonable to discuss that the defendant's argument that the facts were properly prepared, as pointed out in the paper,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Judge Do-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court Decision Do-dong (Presiding Justice)