beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not know at all about the process that the money deposited to prove the balance of the corporation deposited into the A’s account and withdrawn, and there was no conspiracy to commit the instant crime.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of fraud by deeming him as a joint principal offender of the crime of this case as a crime of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment.
B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In a case where two or more persons on the assertion of mistake of facts jointly process a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime.
Therefore, even if there is no master process of the whole, if there is a conspiracy between several people, it is established if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly.
As long as such solicitation has been made, a person who is not directly involved in the conduct of another public corporation is subject to criminal liability as a joint principal offender for the conduct of another public corporation, and even if the joint principal offender of fraud was aware of the method of deception, the relationship of conspiracy cannot be denied.
(See Supreme Court Decision 201Do9721 Decided December 22, 2011, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080 Decided August 23, 2013, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of such legal principles and evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, it is sufficient to deem that the Defendant was a public-private partnership with other accomplices, either successively or implicitly, by combining the intent to commit the instant crime.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of fraud is just, and there is no illegality of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant.