beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;
A. The Defendant merely received money from the victim to H’s account upon C’s request by mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, but did not conspired to commit the crime of defraudation with C.
Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of 80 million won by deceiving the victim in collusion with C by misunderstanding the facts. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (ten months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service, 120 hours of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. In a case where two or more persons are co-offenders who jointly process a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is only a combination of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of a crime by two or more persons. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intention is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct of the conspiracy, the conspiracy is held liable as co-principal for the other co-principal's act.
(See Supreme Court Decision 98Do30 delivered on March 27, 1998, etc.). Comprehensively considering the health care unit and the evidence adopted and examined by this court regarding the instant case, the following circumstances, i.e., ① the victim was recommended from the investigative agency to purchase the Defendant and C from the first place to the court below, and the victim was able to make monthly profits if invested in the commercial building from the Defendant, who is the chairperson of the accounting corporation, and consistently stated that the Defendant remitted KRW 80 million to the account known to the Defendant, and ② the court below’s decision.