logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.11 2018노3129
사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Seized evidence 1 to 4 shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The Defendant had no knowledge that the Cze Card in this case was used for the phishing crime, and had no intention to take part in the fraud crime.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

The lower court’s sentence of the prosecutor (e.g., e., e., g., e., e.

Judgment

In a case where the defendant denies the criminal intent, which is a subjective element of the constituent elements of the criminal composition, the criminal intent itself cannot be objectively proved. Therefore, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts related to the criminal intent due to the nature of the object.

At this time, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial fact that is relevant should be reasonably determined by a method of reasonably determining the link of facts with a detailed observation or analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do8645, Feb. 23, 2006; 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). On the other hand, dolusent intent, unlike gross negligence, has the awareness of the possibility of occurrence of criminal facts, and further has the internal intent to allow the risk of criminal facts.

Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime shall be confirmed from the standpoint of the actor, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of the crime, based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of the act and the situation of the act that was externally revealed without depending on the statement of the actor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do74, May 14, 2004; 2016Do15470, Jan. 12, 2017). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court reveals the following circumstances.

The defendant is designated at a designated place.

arrow