logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.20 2016고단5857
사기방조
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, on June 17, 2016, misrepresented the victim C and the victim D to the effect that the Defendant misrepresented himself as a police officer or inspector on the charge, and wired money to the effect that “the Defendant shall transfer money pursuant to instructions given to protect an account by stealing personal information”. The Defendant had the victim C transfer KRW 23,920,40 to the post office account (E) in the name of the Defendant on the same day, and likewise, he received the money by allowing the victim D to transfer KRW 13,000,000 to the said account, each of the above money by allowing the victim D to transfer a copy of the passbook connected to the said account on the 14th of the same month prior to that time, so that it can be used for the crime by sending it to the above non-indicted, and the Defendant withdrawn money from the Defendant’s digital account by allowing the victim D to withdraw the money from the Defendant’s account in the way of 200,300,000 won deposited in the Defendant’s digital account.

2. Determination

A. Under the relevant legal doctrine, an act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing a crime. The so-called aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the commission of the principal offender and the act of the principal offender is an act that meets the requirements for composition.

In addition, since such intent is an in-depth fact, in a case where the defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove indirect facts having considerable relevance to the intention due to the nature of the object. In this case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance is based on normal empirical rule, there is no other way than reasonably determining the link of facts by using the closely-populated observation or analysis power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do4228, Mar. 25, 2010).

arrow