beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
B Imprisonment for one year, and each of the defendants A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
, however, the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants and their defense counsel (the two-year imprisonment and confiscation, the one-year imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.
B. As to the facts of the crime of the lower judgment, it is sufficient to recognize the Defendant A as a joint principal offender in light of the following: (a) the Defendant was able to prepare part of the tools of the crime; (b) the place of the crime and the method of the crime; and (c) the consent thereto was given with sufficient awareness in advance; and (d) the sales amount of precious metal stolen by the Defendant B deposited in the passbook under the name of the Defendant A; (b) however, the lower court recognized only the charge of aiding and abetting the Defendant A
2. Determination
A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act committed a crime jointly by two or more persons. In order to constitute a co-principal, the subjective requirement is the intent and objective requirement of co-principal, and the fact of committing a crime through functional control based on the co-principal’s intent is required. The intention of co-processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime but not to restrain it, and it is not sufficient to accept it without the other person’s intention to commit a specific criminal act, and to move one’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act by using another’s act
In addition, when one of the competitors has left from the public contest relationship before the other competitors reach the action of the contest, he shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the subsequent acts of the other competitors. However, the deviation from the public contest relationship is necessary to resolve the functional control of the conduct taken place by the contest. Therefore, the contester shall participate primarily in the public contest and the other contester shall be held liable.