beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of one million won, and the defendant B shall be punished by a fine of five hundred thousand won.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① Defendant B only took charge of facility management at the E department store construction site (hereinafter “instant construction site”) as stated in the judgment of the court below, and did not participate in or conspired to remove the instant tent, etc. at the direction of Defendant A.
(2) No housework shall be used.
Even if the Defendants’ removal of the instant tent constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules and thus, its illegality is excluded.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 1.5 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant B’s conspiracys or participation in a crime is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons’ intent to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Thus, if a combination of intent is made in order or impliedly through a joint process of a crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721, Dec. 22, 2011). In addition, joint principal offenders under Article 30 of the Criminal Act are established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements of crime committed through functional control based on their intent of joint process and its joint intent. Even if a person was not directly shared with part of the elements of a crime, considering the status, role, control or power over the progress of the crime, etc., the conspiracy is not merely a mere conspiracy, but also a functional control over the act through substantial contribution to the crime, and if it is deemed that there exists a joint principal offender as a joint principal offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4270.).