Whether the establishment of an aiding and abetting can be recognized without confirming the principal's practice

The crime of aiding and abetting is established in addition to the crime of the principal offender, and only the crime of aiding and abetting shall not be established independently unless the principal offender commences the act of aiding and abetting.

Article 32 of the Criminal Act

A

Attorney B (National Ship) C (Private Ship)

Seoul High Court Decision 78No1118 delivered on November 10, 1978

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

According to the reasoning of the original judgment on April 22, 1978, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of 200,000 UN on April 22, 1978, around 08:00, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor of 12,400,000 for each of the above crimes under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, with prison labor of 12,40,000 won for each of the crimes under Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which started from the Republic of Korea on April 22, 1978. Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which came into force on April 22, 1978. Article 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and Article 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of 200160 won and 360 of the Act.

However, the crime of aiding and abetting is established in addition to the crime of aiding and abetting, and only the crime of aiding and abetting shall not be established independently unless the principal's act of aiding and abetting is commenced. In this case, the original judgment is the so-called "aided and abetting" as above at the time when the defendant's above original judgment is applied to the defendant's act of aiding and abetting and abetting, and it cannot be seen that the so-called the defendant's judgment constitutes an act of evading customs duties and defense tax (in accordance with the above original judgment, the so-called "act of evading customs duties and defense tax" can also be viewed as an act of aiding and abetting and abetting). The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of the crime of aiding and abetting and abetting, which is the premise, and it did not conduct a deliberation as to the confirmation of the principal's act of aiding and abetting and abetting, which is the premise thereof, or erred in the application of law, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and even if the defendant's family's so-called constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting customs duty under Article 182 of the above Aggravated Act, it shall be interpreted.

Therefore, since the original judgment cannot be maintained for the above reasons, the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)