(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.09.18 2018노1321

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.09.18 2018노1321

외국환거래법위반등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion against the defendant shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

except that this judgment.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of the lower court against the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the background leading up to the Defendant’s 16 million won from H, circumstances at the time, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior, it can be seen that the Defendant sufficiently recognized that his act was an unlawful act.

Therefore, it is necessary to recognize the criminal intent that the defendant is involved in licensing by delivering the defendant with an incomplete or negative illegal cash.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant about aiding and abetting the fraud is erroneous.

2) The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too uncomfortable.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of the facts, Article 1 of the Act provides that the principal offender’s act of aiding and abetting the principal offender to commit a crime is an act committed with the knowledge that the principal offender is committing the crime, and therefore, the principal offender is required to have the principal offender’s intent to assist and abetting the principal offender to commit the crime and that the principal offender’s act constitutes the elements for constituting the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do382, Apr. 8, 2003). One type of conviction ought to be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it clear that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, so if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the Defendant, it should be determined as the interest of the principal offender, and the same applies to the recognition of the principal offender’s intent to aiding and abetting or to commit the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do2255, Jul. 23, 2015). 2)

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 4. 8. 선고 2003도382 판결

-대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도2255 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노3903

-청주지방법원 2020.10.30 2020노333

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.31 2018노805

-울산지방법원 2020.07.23 2019노1018

-인천지방법원 2021.01.07 2020노625