beta
Text
The judgment below
Of them, the part on Defendant B shall be reversed.
Defendant
B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
Defendant .
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Prosecutor’s sentence (the two years of suspended execution in August, and the one year of suspended execution in April) of the lower court’s sentence (the two years of suspended execution in Defendant A and the one year of suspended execution in April) is too unfluent and unfair.
B. Defendant B (1) misunderstanding of facts) Although Defendant B conspired with Defendant A and did not commit the instant fraud, the lower court found Defendant A and the victims guilty of the instant facts charged by taking into account each of the statements, etc., which are difficult to credibility, and erred by misapprehending the facts contrary to the rules of evidence. 2) The sentence of the lower court’s unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In relation to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a certain crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of intent to do so in the order of multiple persons or impliedly, the conspiracy is established. As long as there was such conspiracy, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the person who did not directly participate in the conduct is criminal liability for the other conspiracy’s act as a co-principal. Such conspiracy can be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004). Moreover, even between those who are in the relationship of life-saving, it does not interfere with the establishment of a co-principal unless the co-principal was processed jointly in the crime as mentioned above.
I would like to say.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do1793 delivered on June 16, 1995). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A is a corporation with the pretext of allowing Chinese people to download the sound source at the Internet site called J.