beta
Text
The judgment below
The guilty portion shall be reversed.
Defendant
Imprisonment with prison labor for A, a year and six months, a short term of one year, and a short term of one.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the case of the Defendants’ embezzlement crime, the lower court found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that the crime of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the fraud was committed ex post facto, but the Defendants merely committed an aiding and abetting and abetting that is not the principal offender for the crime of aiding and abetting the fraud, and thus, it does not constitute an ex post facto act of embezzlement.
In the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on this part.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants is too unfortunate and unfair.
2. Determination:
A. In this case’s assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles, the act of fraud is terminated when the Defendants received money from the injured party to the savings account provided by the Defendants without the process of aiding and abetting the Defendants to transfer the money to the principal offender and obtaining money from the injured party (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6256, Dec. 9, 2010). As such, when the money of the injured party was deposited into the savings account provided by the Defendants, the crime of fraud is terminated and the legal assessment of the injured party’s damage is completed, and even if the Defendants withdraw the money from the savings account, the relationship with the injured party does not exceed the amount of legal interests infringed on by the preceding fraud.
Therefore, these withdrawals constitute a crime of fraud because there is no infringement of new legal interests against the victim.
On the other hand, there is a view that such withdrawals of deposits by a teacher who is not a principal offender and a aided offender are not a crime of fraud but a separate crime of embezzlement.
However, the accomplice is involved in the act of the principal offender by causing or promoting the act of the principal offender, and the establishment of the accomplice is subordinate to the establishment of the principal offender, and the illegality of the accomplice eventually comes from the illegality of the principal offender.
A principal offender;