Whether the act of introducing and negotiating a victim to a principal offender constitutes aiding and abetting the principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is trying to commit a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act (affirmative)

The act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Code is an act that facilitates the conduct of a principal offender with knowledge of the fact that the principal offender is committing a crime, and it is not a material method, mental method, direct or indirect case with respect to the implementation of the principal offender, and the act of introducing and negotiating a person with financial capacity to commit a violation of the Attorney-at-Law Act of the principal offender (the act of aiding and abetting 20 million won with knowledge of the fact that the Defendants intended to commit a violation of the law of the principal offender.

Article 32 of the Criminal Act, Article 48 of the Attorney-at-Law Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Jong-ok (Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant 2)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No4644 delivered on September 24, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

The act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act is an act that facilitates the execution of a principal offender by requesting the above co-defendant 1 to commit an offense, and it is no direct or indirect case (in the case of indirect aiding and abetting, etc.), which is a material method (e.g., introducing an offender to the victim with the knowledge that such act would result in lending a deadly weapon or fraud) with respect to the execution of the principal offender. On the other hand, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below cited by the court below, the first instance court recognized that Co-defendant 1 was an unlawful act of aiding and abetting and abetting the above co-defendant 1 to the effect that the above co-defendant 2's act of aiding and abetting and abetting the crime was committed under the name of the above co-defendant 3, which is an unlawful act of aiding and abetting the above co-defendant 1 to the effect that the above co-defendant 1 would have no capacity to do so by obtaining the above facts from the administrative authority for construction permit, and thus, it appears that the above co-defendant 1 and the above construction permit of the defendant 2 will not be capable.

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

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)