[1] Requirements for establishing a conspiracy relationship in a conspiracy of co-principal

[2] The case holding that a joint principal offense of fraud is recognized in a case where the so-called breabbbbbbing bill was previously distributed

[3] The degree of specification of the facts charged in relation to an inclusive one crime

[4] In the case of violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act, the specification of the facts charged

[1] In relation to accomplices who are co-processed with two or more offenses, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process and realize a crime. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intentions is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there is no direct participation in the execution, the other co-offenders' criminal liability is imposed as co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

[2] The case holding that even if the bill issued and sold with the so-called breabbbbb area and was not directly involved in the act of fraud, it is not exempt from liability as a joint principal offender, and even if it was unaware of the distribution route or method of deception of the bill, it cannot be denied the relation of conspiracy even though it was unaware of the specific method of deception

[3] The facts charged as stated in the indictment must be specified. However, in the case of a comprehensive one crime, even if not specifically specified for each act constituting part of the crime, the facts constituting the crime are specified if the whole crime is specified in the time, completion period, method, frequency of the crime, or the sum of transaction amounts, and transaction counterpart.

[4] In the case of violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act which operates a short-term financing business without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, it should be clarified whether each of the bills is subject to the application of the Short-Term Finance Business Act by specifying whether the maturity comes within the period as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy.

[1] Articles 30 and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 30 and 347 (1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [4] Article 254 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 2 of the Short-Term Finance Business Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do1114 delivered on September 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1294), Supreme Court Decision 93Do1435 delivered on July 27, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2479), Supreme Court Decision 93Do3154 delivered on March 8, 1994 (Gong1994, 1225), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1831 delivered on September 9, 1994 (Gong194, 2690), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1269 delivered on September 5, 195 (Gong1995Ha, 345, 3458) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 97Do19849 delivered on September 27, 1995 (Gong1985, 97Do198589, Sep. 27, 199

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants (Attorneys Yang Sung-sung General Law Firm, Attorneys Lee In-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 97No274 delivered on June 11, 1997

All appeals are dismissed. The number of detention days after the appeal shall be included 90 days in each original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the part of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant 1, 2, and 3, and by the defendant 2 and the defendant 4

In relation to co-offenders who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of intent to realize a crime through the joint processing of the crimes. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of intent is made in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there is no direct participation in the conduct, even if there is no direct participation in the conduct, the other co-offenders' criminal liability is imposed as co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do1435, Jul. 27, 1993; 94Do1831, Sept. 9, 1994; 95Do1269, Sept. 5, 195).

Examining the evidence revealed by the lower court and the first instance court’s judgment, Defendant 1, 2, and 3 were aware of the facts that the above Defendants would have purchased and sold the instant bill at least once, and the Defendants would not be able to purchase and sell the bill at least once, and the Defendants would have been aware of the fact that they would have purchased and sold the bill at least once, and that they would not be able to purchase and sell the bill at least once, and would have been aware of the fact that the Defendants would have been aware of the fact that they would have purchased and sold the bill at least once, and would not be able to purchase and sell the bill at least once, and would have been aware of the fact that each of the above Defendants would not have been able to purchase and sell the bill at least once, and would have been aware of the fact that each of the above Defendants would have been able to purchase and sell the bill at least once under the name of the above Nonindicted Party, including the first instance court, Co-Defendant 1, 12, 139,12, etc.

Therefore, the court below's fact-finding and judgment are justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, causation with the criminal intent of fraud, and conspiracy. Thus, the argument in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

In the grounds of appeal, Supreme Court Decision 89Do2542 Decided February 27, 1990, which is alleged in the grounds of appeal, is related to a case in which the intermediate distribution process of forged checks or so-called breabbbing notes is not revealed, and it is inappropriate to invoke this case as it differs from this case.

2. As to the part on Defendant 3’s ground of appeal on the violation of the Short-term Finance Act

The facts charged as stated in the indictment must be specified, but in the case of an inclusive one crime, even if it is not specified in detail with regard to each act forming part of the crime, if it is specified in the whole time and completion period of the crime, method of the crime, frequency of the crime, or aggregate of transaction amount, and transaction counterpart, the facts constituting the crime are specified (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3297 delivered on February 17, 1995, Supreme Court Decision 97Do508 delivered on June 27, 1997, etc.). However, in the case where a short-term financial business is operated without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, if it is the same as a short-term financial business operated under the Short-term Financial Business Act without the approval of the Minister of Finance and Economy, it must be specified whether each bill arrives within one year, and whether it is subject to the application of the Short-term Financial Business Act (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2569 delivered on December 28, 1982).

Examining the facts charged in violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act with Defendant 3 in light of these standards, the following facts are clearly stated with respect to the part 12 promissory notes listed in the annexed Table 1 of the judgment below, which shall not exceed one year from the date of issuance, and the maturity shall expire within the period as determined by the Minister of Finance and Economy, and the remaining parts of the promissory notes shall be subject to the premise that they fall under the above (in accordance with the investigation records 1,330 to 1,503, it is clear that all of the above bills have arrived within one year from the date of issuance). The whole period and termination period of the crime, method of crime, number of crimes or transaction amount, and transaction amount shall be specified. Accordingly, the part of the above facts charged shall not be deemed to have not been specified, and it does not appear to have impeded the exercise of the defendant's right to defense, and the defendant in the court below withdrawn his claim that the facts charged against the violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act was not specified, and thus, it cannot be asserted in the grounds for final appeal.

In addition, according to the evidence revealed by the judgment of the court below and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the above defendant can be acknowledged that the bill of this case was issued in the name of the non-indicted or purchased a blank promise bill from Defendant 1, 2, etc. to supplement the amount and the due date, and sold it to the non-indicted 12, etc. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Short-Term Finance Business Act since all of the bill of this case falls under the category of the bill stipulated in Article 2 (1) of the Short-Term Finance Business Act (the bill of this case includes the name and seal of the issuer and the amount and the due date of payment of the bill of this case, but the bill of this case is not specified but the bill of this case can be supplemented at any time by the holder, and such bill of this case can not be seen as a bill of exchange falling under Article 2 (1) of the Short-Term Finance Business Act, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the object of the short-term Finance Business Act or the grounds for appeal.

3. As to Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal on unreasonable sentencing

In the case of this case where three-year imprisonment is sentenced, the assertion that there is a ground to recognize that the amount of punishment is too unreasonable cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and every ninety days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)