logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 목포지원 2014.12.29 2014고정441
사기방조
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. From June 15, 2010 to July 2, 2010, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that “C sells high-, high-, high-, and high-, high-, high-, on the Internet website by using personal information known by the Defendant from June 15, 2010 to July 2, 2010, the Defendant aided and abetted the Defendant to commit the said C’s fraud by advertising four names, such as D, etc. necessary to post a letter to sell high-, high-, high-, and high-, high-, high-, and high-, high-, high-, high-, and high-, high-, high-, and high-, high-, high-level, high-level, high-level, high-level, and high-level, high-level, high-level, high-level, and high-

2. According to the evidence submitted by the judgment prosecutor, it is recognized that the Defendant sent C text messages using a mobile phone, a mobile phone, a mobile phone, with the name and resident registration number of another person, and that C posted a letter that used personal information received from the Defendant to sell used Otobane.

The intention of aiding and abetting so-called aiding and abetting the implementation of the principals and that the act of the principal offender is an act that constitutes the elements of a crime must be the principal offender's intention.

However, since such intention is an in-depth fact, it is inevitable to prove it by means of proving indirect facts with substantial relevance.

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 Supreme Court Decision 2003Do6056 Decided April 29, 2005, etc.). However, the evidence submitted by a prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that C had dolusent or predicted the circumstance that the Defendant would commit a sales fraud using personal information received from the Defendant, and it is insufficient to recognize that C had dolusent or predicted the circumstance that the Defendant would commit a sales fraud by using personal information received from the Defendant.