beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (De facto Error) was unaware of the fact that the rent-a-car business of Defendant B was illegal, and the lower court which recognized Defendant A as an establishment of aiding and abetting was erroneous and thereby affected the conclusion of the judgment.
B. Prosecutor 1) In light of the role of Defendant A in charge of the instant car rental business and the circumstances leading up to the participation in the crime, etc., it is reasonable to deem that Defendant A run a car rental business without registration with his accomplices. Nevertheless, the lower court recognized that Defendant A was guilty of aiding and abetting and abetting the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The lower court’s sentence (Defendant C: a fine of eight million won, Defendant A: a fine of two million won) against the Defendants on the ground of unfair sentencing as to the Defendants on the grounds of unfair sentencing against the Defendants, is unreasonable.
2. Determination on the grounds for appeal
A. Defendant A and the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) From September 28, 2014 to October 19, 2019 of the same year, Defendant A displayed the vehicle to a customer who seeks to rent an imported vehicle in accordance with B’s instructions from an officetel underground parking lot up to eight times; and (b) upon entering into a siren contract, the role of delivering the siren fee to B or finding the imported vehicle again; (c) Defendant A’s aforementioned act alone cannot be evaluated as functionally controlling the act by way of an essential contribution to the crime of car rental business without registration.
Defendant
A Recognizing the crime of rent-a-car business without registration of B, etc., it seems that it is reasonable to view that Defendant A had the intent of co-processing as a subjective requirement to recognize the establishment of co-principal.
3. On the other hand, Defendant A is illegal for rent-a-car business run by “B.”