beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants B shall be punished by a fine of 12,00,000 won.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) In fact, Defendant B was engaged in the work according to the direction of Defendant A, and there was no conspiracy with Defendant A.
In addition, one victim L, M, and N are the employees of the business team who worked in the real estate planning company, and the victim Q is a person who is not aware of the defendant B, there is no fact that the victims were accused of them.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts 1) In the co-offender relationship that two or more persons of the relevant legal principles jointly process for a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is only a combination of intent to realize a crime by combining two or more persons to jointly process a crime.
Although there is no process of the whole mother, if the combination of doctors is made in order or implicitly through several persons, there is a competitive relationship.
In order to recognize such a conspiracy, strict proof is required, but if the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts that have considerable relevance to the nature of the object.
In such a case, what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance ought to be based on normal empirical rule and ought to be reasonably determined on the basis of a close observation or analysis (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). 2) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant B conspired with Defendant A, as indicated in the judgment of the lower court, and deceiving the victims.