logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.07.19 2018노4466
사기방조
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had the intention to assist the Defendant in committing the instant crime at least dolusingly, and that there was the principal offender’s intention to commit the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. A. A crime of aiding and abetting and aiding the commission of a principal offender and a principal offender’s act must be the principal offender’s intent to commit an act that constitutes a constituent element. However, such intent is an in-depth fact. Therefore, in a case where the Defendant denies it, it is inevitable to prove an indirect fact that has considerable relevance with the intention given the nature of the object, and there is no other method to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis power based on normal empirical rule.

In addition, the intention of the principal offender in the aiding and abetting crime is not required to identify the specific contents of the crime realized by the principal offender, but it is sufficient to dolusence or prediction.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9500, Dec. 8, 2011).

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant, even if not aware of the specific contents and methods of the crime of fraud committed by a person who was unable to obtain his/her name, aided and abetting the Defendant by recognizing the fact that his/her act may be used as a means of the crime of Bophishing fraud and allowing it.

Although the defendant is a person who was naturalization in China, he/she has experience in accounting work at the workplace after graduating from high school in China, is relatively free in Korean, and has continued to reside in the Republic of Korea since his/her entry in around 2012, and is in Korea around April 2016.

arrow