beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two years and two months.
An applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts by part of the defendant and unreasonable sentencing)
A. Some erroneous facts (as to the partial amount of No. 2, No. 3, and No. 4 in the judgment of the court below), the Defendant received 7.5 million won out of the amount of damage No. 2, No. 3 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, 7.5 million won out of the amount of damage No. 4 in the same list of crimes, and 6.5 million won out of the amount of damage No. 4 in the same list of crimes, and received an instruction to the specific amount of money that the Defendant “deposit by delivery of KRW 7.5 million to the Defendant,” and “deposit by delivery of KRW 6 million from the person who was under whose name the Defendant directed the crime,” and that in the case No. 2, No. 3 and No. 4 in the list of crimes in the judgment of the court below, it shall be deemed that there was no awareness of the Defendant’s remittance by delivery, and thus, it is unreasonable to impose liability for the un instructed
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination of the assertion of mistake of facts is not required under the law to jointly process two or more accomplices in relation to a crime, but is a combination of intent to realize the crime through the joint processing of the crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intent to commit the crime in a successive or secret manner, the conspiracy relationship is established if there is no process of the entire conspiracy, and even those who did not directly participate in the act of the commission, are held liable as a co-principal for the other accomplices' acts. Therefore, even if the co-principal of fraud knew the method of deception in detail, the conspiracy relationship cannot be denied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1706, Sept. 12, 1997; 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013).