beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although there was a fact that another investigator of the mistake of facts did not directly participate in the act of committing the instant crime, there was no fact that there was a conspiracy to commit the instant crime.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In relation to co-offenders who are co-processed with more than two relevant legal principles, the conspiracy does not legally require any type of punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to realize a crime by co-processing together with intent to commit a crime. If the combination of intent is carried out in a successive or implicit manner, the conspiracy relationship is established. A person who does not directly participate in the act of the other co-offenders, even if such conspiracy was carried out, shall be subject to criminal liability as co-principal for the other
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Do1706 delivered on September 12, 1997. In the case of a co-principal, in light of various circumstances, such as the means and form of the crime, the number of participating persons and their inclinations, time and characteristics of the place of the crime, possibility of contact with others in the course of the crime, possibility of contact with others and anticipated possible reaction, etc., the conspiracys could have anticipated or sufficiently anticipated other crimes incidental to the crime committed by themselves during the commission of the crime, or attempted to achieve the purpose of the crime. However, if the conspiracys were to have committed the crime without taking any reasonable measures to prevent such occurrence, if they were to have attempted to commit the crime, they should be deemed to have a functional control over all the crime by the initial conspiracys, even if there was no contact with them as to one derivative crime, and even if there was no contact with them individually.
(see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2017Do14322 Decided April 19, 2018). B.
The Defendant is determined by the lower court.