An illegal example in which the facts charged are indicated in the crime;

The case where the entry of the facts charged by the aiding and abetting is illegal because there is no entry of specific facts that meet the requirements for the constituent elements of the principal offender.

Article 32 of the Criminal Act, Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Attorney Song-tae (Presiding Justice)

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 80No7665 delivered on February 10, 1981

All the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court.

We examine ex officio.

The original charge refers to a specific fact that satisfies the requirements for special composition of a crime, and the indictment requires the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts underlying the prosecution in the indictment to the extent that it can distinguish the facts underlying the prosecution from other facts in the indictment. In describing the facts charged by an aiding and abetting offender, it is deemed that the detailed facts meeting the requirements for the composition of the principal offender, which is a prerequisite, are

However, according to the facts charged of the instant indictment, since the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 1 and 2 on the charge of the violation of the Petroleum Act and fraud, etc. of this case, the Defendants did not have any way to make the above-mentioned facts of fraud by using the method of calculating the quality of gasoline in each of the above-mentioned facts and supplying them to each of the above-mentioned gasoline storage tanks in collusion with the gas station managers in each of the same areas, and thereby making it difficult for the above-mentioned Defendants to take any measures of fraud by using the same way as the above-mentioned facts of fraud as stated in the indictment for the purpose of selling them, and thus, the court below's judgment that the above-mentioned facts of fraud did not have any effect on the above-mentioned facts of fraud, and thus, it is difficult for the above-mentioned Nonindicted 1 and 2 to find out the facts that the above-mentioned facts of fraud could not have any effect on the sale of large-scale cash transactions from around April 197 to September 197.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)