logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.03.24 2015노2213
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In regard to the crime committed again (total 11 cases) Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15, and 22 of the crime list as indicated in the judgment of the court below in the judgment below, the Defendant merely introduced a person upon the request of the person to the effect that "if he wishes to commit an insurance fraud, referring to the person who will commit an insurance fraud at the same time." There was no opinion about the specific crime plan, and there was no fact that he directly or indirectly participated in the act, and there was no fact that he received money from the accomplice for the crime Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 12, 14, and 15.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have functional control over each of the above crimes, and was not a joint principal offender, and even if the crime was established, even if it was not an aiding and abetting, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby convicting the Defendant of the above charges.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (1) The joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the commission of a crime through functional control based on the intent to co-processing and the intent to co-processing. In a case where some of the competitors did not directly share part of the constituent requirements and carried out.

Even if it is recognized that the functional control over the crime exists through the essential contribution to the crime rather than just a person who has conspired, the so-called "joint principal offender" cannot be exempted from the liability for the crime (Supreme Court Decisions 98Do321 Decided May 21, 1998; 2007Do235 Decided April 26, 2007; 2007Do428 Decided April 26, 2007).

arrow