The case where a minor was prosecuted as a joint principal of the crime of abduction and inducement;

It is reasonable to see that it is possible to recognize the facts charged as a co-principal without modification of indictment procedures.

Article 298 of the Criminal Procedure Act

On September 12, 1963, 63Do215 (Supreme Court Decision 3941, Supreme Court Decision 11B-32, summary of the decision, Article 298(14)1438 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 337(334) of the Criminal Act in the Official Gazette

Defendant

Busan District Court Jinju Branch (80 Gohap67)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

One hundred fifteen days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

On May 3, 1980, the gist of the appeal by the defendant and his state appointed defense counsel was that at the request of the defendant non-indicted 1 on May 3, 1980, the defendant born the victim non-indicted 2 (age 6) to the house of the defendant's office, such as the plaintiff's front inquiry, and the non-indicted 1's office was playing at the house of the non-indicted 1 and sent the child to the kindergarten around 11:00 on the same day, but the defendant was unaware of the fact that at that time, the non-indicted 1 was unable to know that he had come to the above child and the victim non-indicted 3 was forced to bring money to the above non-indicted 1,00 won, and that the defendant conspiredd the above non-indicted 1 to the above non-indicted 1,000 won for the defendant's online arrest at the commercial place of the Korean bank and did not know that the defendant had an influence on the non-indicted 1's online arrest.

First, if the defendant conspired with the non-indicted 1 to commit a crime at the time of the trial of the court below, he consistently denies the above money from the non-indicted 1 to the trial of the police. However, according to the court below's fourth trial date, the defendant's statement at the police and prosecutor's office and the statement at the court of the court below prior to the above trial date was reversed, and the non-indicted 1's living environment acknowledged by the records of the case showed that the defendant was merely acting in accordance with the defendant's prior plan, but he did not know of the above facts at the non-indicted 1's own time and did not have any special motive to believe that the defendant's statement was carried out by the non-indicted 10,000 won at the time of the above non-indicted 1's attempt to keep the above money from the non-indicted 1's own office and the non-indicted 1's statement at the non-indicted 1's police station and the prosecutor's office, it cannot be seen that the defendant's statement at the court below's first trial.

나아가 원심 및 당심에서 적법히 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 이 사건의 발단 및 그 경위는 공소외 1이 그의 가옥을 매도하여 예상하지 못한 양도소득세가 460만원이 체납되고 피고인에게 빌린 채무 100만원을 비롯하여 다수의 채무로 고민하던중 어린이를 유괴하여 그 부모로부터 금원을 갈취하기로 결심하고 그 대상을 물색하던중 1980. 4. 10. 진주시 소재 (명칭 생략)산부인과의원 근처에서 위 산부인과원장의 아들인 피해자 공소외 2 어린이가 놀다가 그의 집으로 들어가는 것을 목격하고 위 어린이를 유괴하기로 꾀하여 같은해 5. 2. 아침 (명칭 생략)산부인과의원 근처에서 공소외 2가 국민학생인 그의 누이와 같이 집을 나와 혼자서 유치원에 가는 것을 확인한 후 공소외 2 곁에 다가가 같이 걸으면서 말을 거는등 하여 일단 얼굴을 익힌후 그날 평소 약초판매 관계로 친히 지내던 피고인에게 전화를 걸어 위와 같은 계획을 숨긴채 좋은 일이 있으니 내일 아침 9시까지 진주시 소재 월성여관 앞으로 나오라고 연락을 하고 피고인은 그 연락에 따라 같은달 3. 09:00경 오토바이를 타고 위 약속장소에 나타났던바 공소외 1은 이미 (명칭 생략)산부인과의원 근처에 대기하고 있다고 공소외 2 어린이가 혼자서 유치원으로 가는 것을 보고 그의 곁에 가서 손을 잡고 말을 걸면서 유치원에 데려다 준다고 꾀어 피고인과 약속한 장소에 이르러 피고인에게 잘아는 어린이이니 공소외 1의 집에 태워다 달라기에 피고인은 영문도 모르고 위 어린이를 공소외 1과 함께 오토바이에 태워 공소외 1의 집에 도착하여 그집 방에 들어간 사실, 공소외 1은 피고인 및 위 어린이와 방에 들어간 후 같은날 09:45경 그들이 있는 방의 전화로서 처음 공소외 2의 아버지 공소외 3을 호출하여 공소외 2를 우리들이 보호하고 있다는 말을 함으로써 위 어린이를 유괴되었다는 뜻을 고지한 후 약 10분 후에 다시 같은 전화로서 공소외 3을 호출하여 “우리들의 목적은 돈이다”라는 취지의 말을 하였는바, 이때 피고인은 비로소 위 어린이가 공소외 1에 의하여 유괴되었음을 알게된 사실, 그후 약 40분후 공소외 1이 다시 공소외 3에게 공중전화로 협박하기 위하여 2회에 걸쳐 집밖을 나갈때 피고인은 위와 같은 사정을 알면서도 공소외 1로부터 위 어린이를 은연중 인계받아 그 어린이를 도망가지 못하게 말을 걸면서 감시를 하고 점차 겁을 먹게된 피고인은 공소외 1이 두번째 공중전화를 하고 그 방에 돌아올때 위 어린이를 돌려보내자고 제의하고 공소외 1도 동의하여 같은날 11:00경 위 어린이를 택시에 태워 유치원에 보내고 피고인도 공소외 1과 헤어진 사실, 그후 공소외 1은 혼자서 공소외 3에게 돈을 주지 아니하면 위 어린이를 다시 유괴하여 해를 입히겠다는 내용의 협박전화를 4, 5회 더하는 일방 상업은행 진주지점에 “이용희”란 가명으로 온라인구좌를 설치하여 공소외 3에게 협박하여 같은달 10. 금 300만원을 위 이용희 구좌에 입금시키도록 한 사실, 공소외 1은 위 돈이 입금된 것을 알고 위 돈을 한국은행 마산지점에서 찾도록 기도하고 만약의 경우를 대비하여 제3자로 하여금 위 돈을 찾는 것이 안전하다고 생각한 공소외 1은 같은달 12. 다시 피고인에게 전화로 전에 빌린 돈을 준다고 유혹하여 앞서 본 바와 같이 진주합동주차장에서 만나 마산에 가서 한국상업은행 마산지점에서 공소외 1이 피고인을 시켜 위 돈 300만원을 찾다가 이미 잠복하고 있는 경찰관에게 위와 같이 체포된 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이러한 일련의 사실에 의하면 피고인은 공소외 1과 공모하여 이사건 범행을 공동으로 실현한다는 의사는 없었으나 공소외 2 어린이가 공소외 1 집에 납치되어 그집 방에 2회에 걸쳐 협박전화를 할 때는 당시 같은 방에 있었던 피고인으로서는 공소외 2가 피고인도 모르는 사이에 피고인의 협조 아래 유괴되어 공소외 1이 위 어린이의 부모에게 돈을 갈취하기 위하여 협박전화를 한다는 정을 알면서 공소외 1이 협박전화를 하기 위하여 집 밖으로 나갈 때 위 어린이를 도망하지 못하게 얘기를 걸면서 감시한 사실은 공소외 1의 이사건 범행을 용이하게 함으로써 이를 방조한 책임을 면할 수 없다 할 것이다.

Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, and that the defendant is liable as joint principal offender in collusion with the non-indicted 1 for the crime of this case, and that it is possible to judge the facts charged as joint principal offender without being exempted from reversal because the judgment of the court below was affected by the conclusion of the judgment, and to recognize the facts charged as joint principal offender may be judged without the procedure of modification of indictment. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and

On May 2, 1980, the Defendant was engaged in agriculture, who was a good day from Nonindicted 1 to Nonindicted 2 on the lower court’s trial. The Defendant was urged from Nonindicted 2 to 3 to 1’s home-to-day telephone call at the time of Jin-si located in Jin-si at 9:0, and went off in the future of the Fung-dong located in the same city, which was promised at around 09:00. At this point, Nonindicted 1 moved in the kindergarten, leading Nonindicted 3 to take her hand, and led Nonindicted 2 (6 years), who was the victim of the president of 100,000, and the Defendant was asked from Nonindicted 2 to 1’s home-to-day to return the money to Nonindicted 3’s home-to-day call to Nonindicted 2, who was aware of the concern that Nonindicted 1 might have taken off the said money, and thus, the Defendant was able to protect the safety of children’s home-to-day from 10 children’s home-to-day.

The above-mentioned facts shall:

1. The defendant and the non-indicted 1's statement corresponding thereto at the court of original instance on the judgment of the court below

1. Statement corresponding thereto in the original trial by Non-Indicted 5 of the witness of the original trial

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the party trial court of Nonindicted 4 and 1

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the accused and Nonindicted Party 1 prepared by the public prosecutor, which corresponds to this

1. Each statement made by the judicial police officer with respect to Nonindicted 5, 3, and 2 in the course of handling administrative affairs; and

1. Present presence of 8 points (No. 1 through 9) per seized letter;

Comprehensively taking account of the facts, there is sufficient evidence to prove the facts.

Article 5-2 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 287 and Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act are applicable to the defendant's judgment. Since the defendant selected and aided a limited term of imprisonment, it is legally mitigated pursuant to Articles 32 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. As seen earlier, it is reasonable to take into account the circumstances of the crime such as the non-indicted 1's failure in the site, and the situation of the crime is being taken into account, such as when the non-indicted 1's failure in the site, etc., the defendant is reduced within the scope of punishment reduced pursuant to Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes. In accordance with Article 57 of the same Act, 115 days of the number of detention days before the sentence is included in the above punishment, and the defendant is a first offender, a graduate from university, and this case is one of the above acts of aiding and abetting the child's at present.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Yoon Young-ok (Presiding Judge)