beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A, C and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A and C (unlawful misunderstanding of facts and Sentencing) did not intend to commit a crime with G, and the judgment of the court below which recognized the facts charged of this case was erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.
The sentence of the court below is too heavy.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts as to Defendant A and B and unfair sentencing), the lower court acquitted Defendant A and B of this part of the facts charged even though it was acknowledged that Defendants A and B conspired with G, etc. on May 16, 2017 and each fraud committed on May 16, 2017.
The sentence of the court below shall be too minor.
2. Determination
A. Determination as to Defendant A and C’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 only constitutes a combination of two or more persons’ intent to jointly process a crime and realize the crime, and thus, there was no process of the whole conspiracy.
Even if there are two or more persons, if the combination of doctors is carried out in a successive or secret manner, a public contest relationship is established, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the contest shall be held liable as a joint principal offender for the act of another contest.
In addition, if the defendant recognizes facts directly involved in the act of the execution and denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective elements should be proved by the method of proving indirect facts that are highly related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object, and what constitutes indirect facts that are highly related should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on close observation or analysis based on the normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 203Da548, May 1, 2003).