(a) The nature of fraud in cases where the winning has been presented by presenting the lottery tickets which have been delivered in advance upon the request of the fraternity, but the winning money has been brought up to the fraternity;

(b) If the winning becomes the winner by presenting the lottery tickets which have been pre-issued upon the request of the fraternity, the nature of the accomplice relationship in a crime of fraud between the fraternity and the winner;

A. If the Defendant was a winner by presenting as if he had opened a lottery ticket which was issued in advance upon the request of the fraternity, and the winning winner was not aware of other fraternitys, even if the Defendant did not have acquired the instant fraternity ultimately and did not bring about it to the fraternity’s owner, there is no complaint for the establishment of fraud.

B. If the Defendant, upon the request of a leader, presented the winning tickets that became the winner by presenting it as if he did not know other members of the community, it is clear that the Defendant and the Gyeyang Week, even if he did so, constitutes an accomplice relationship by deceiving the winning in a way of deception not in accordance with legitimate methods and procedures.

A. Article 347 of the Criminal Act; Articles 347 and 30 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 83No2562, 863 seconds106, 107, 111, 113, 115 decided August 30, 1983

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, Co-Defendant 2 unilaterally received winning prizes from the court of first instance on October 8, 1981, which was 00 won per one unit, and then organized the winning prizes at KRW 167,00 per month before the successful bid, and at KRW 287,00 per month after the successful bid, it is difficult for the Defendant to find the winning prizes at the court of second instance that he received the winning prizes from the public prosecutor's office of 00,000 won, and there is no other evidence that the Defendant would receive the winning prizes from the public prosecutor's office of 14:0,000, the Defendant would not be able to receive the winning prizes from the public prosecutor's office of 5:0,000, which is the first public prosecutor's 6:5,00,000 won, and there is no other evidence that the Defendant would receive the winning prizes from the public prosecutor's office of the court of second instance.

However, fraud is established by deceiving another person to acquire property or property benefits, or allowing a third party to obtain them due to defective disposal of another person's property by deception. Thus, even if the defendant did not ultimately acquire the fraternity of this case as the final facts in the original judgment, and the co-defendant of the original judgment did not bring them up any complaint for the establishment of fraud. Meanwhile, if, in the co-defendant relation of one of the co-offenders, subjectively processing of the two crimes, the communication between the two parties would be punished as co-offenders if there is so-called co-processing that the communication between the two parties would be jointly carried out at the time of the two crimes, either implied or indirect, or not, at the time of the two crimes, at the time of the two crimes, at the court below's decision that the defendant won the winning in an unlawful and unjust manner belongs to the other co-defendants of the original court's decision, it is clear that the defendant would have been aware that it would not go against good faith and cooperation, and that it would not violate social rules, it would not violate the purport of the court below's decision.

Ultimately, the court below's appeal is justified because it is difficult to avoid contradictions in the reasoning by misunderstanding the legal principles on fraud and accomplices.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Criminal Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the case.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)