[1] Whether the crime of aiding and abetting another person to make a false confession on his/her own constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting an offender (affirmative)

[2] In a case where both the defendant and the prosecutor appealed and the prosecutor's appeal was accepted, and the entire judgment of the court below is reversed, whether the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration is applied (negative)

[1] Articles 32 and 151(1) of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 368, 396(2), and 399 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 200Do20 decided Mar. 24, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1106) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7473 decided Jun. 28, 2007 (Gong2007Ha, 1203)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon-ju et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2008No2019 Decided August 7, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. 80 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the principal sentence for crimes No. 2 as stated in the original judgment.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The act of causing another person to commit a crime of aiding and abetting an offender by making himself/herself make a false confession on his/her behalf constitutes a crime of aiding and abetting an offender due to abuse of his/her right of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do20, Mar. 24, 2000). In this case, the other person is a relative who is not punished under Article 151(2) of the Criminal Act, head of family, or a family living together with the head of the household, not any other person (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do3707, Dec. 7, 2006).

On the other hand, such a legal principle applies to cases where aiding and abetting another person to commit a crime for the purpose of the criminal.

In full view of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court recognized that the Defendant assisted the Nonindicted Party to commit a crime by providing the Nonindicted Party with detailed information about the background of the accident and the developments leading up to escape, etc. in order to assist the Nonindicted Party, who is the wife, by providing the Nonindicted Party with information about the background of the accident and the developments leading up to escape. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the aiding and abetting in the crime of aiding and abetting a criminal, as alleged in

2. According to the provisions of Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed only for a case on which death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed. As such, in this case where the defendant was sentenced to a minor imprisonment for less than ten years, the grounds that the sentencing of the sentence is unreasonable are not legitimate grounds

3. The principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration does not apply to a case on which a defendant appealed in order to guarantee the defendant's right to appeal and a case on which a defendant appealed on behalf of the defendant, and where both the defendant and the prosecutor appealed a more severe punishment than that of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it does not apply in cases where the prosecutor accepted the appeal of the prosecutor as a result of both the defendant and the prosecutor, and therefore the whole sentence against the defendant should be re-determined (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7473, Jun. 28

According to the records, the first instance court found the non-indicted as not guilty of the crime of aiding and abetting the Non-indicted in the facts charged in this case, found the defendant guilty of the remaining facts charged, and sentenced the sentence of imprisonment for eight months, and the prosecutor appealed on the part of the non-guilty. The court below found the non-indicted as guilty of aiding and abetting the Non-indicted in the crime of aiding and abetting the Non-indicted in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, the violation of the Road Traffic Act, and the violation of the Road Traffic Act). The court below sentenced the non-indicted 1 to the crime of aiding and abetting the Non-indicted in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the crime

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and a part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)