logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.20 2016노3086
컴퓨터등사용사기등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles ① The Defendant did not have joined as a member of the so-called “phishing” criminal organization of C, etc., and only was the acquisition and sale of gift certificates acquired by him/her after each of the instant crimes was committed, and there was no conspiracy to commit each of the instant crimes, such as C, etc.

② The facts charged in the instant case did not completely specify which the Defendant conspired to commit each of the crimes in C, etc.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (two years and ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The Defendant also asserted that he denies the competitive relationship as above, and the lower court rejected the above assertion by providing a detailed statement on the determination of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process the crime and realize the crime. If the combination of the intent is made in order or impliedly, the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, even those who did not participate directly in the act of the crime are subject to criminal liability as a co-principal for the act of the other co-offenders, and even if they did not specifically know the method of deception, the conspiracy relationship cannot be denied.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5080, Aug. 23, 2013). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in addition to the circumstances appropriately explained by the lower court, namely, ① the Defendant’s credit card conversation with C, etc. directly.

arrow