beta
Text
The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
Reasons
1. misunderstanding of the gist of the grounds for appeal or misunderstanding of legal principles (the defendant was not a de facto representative director in the name of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “instant company”) and did not attract a public contest to commit the instant fraud (the defendant is only a victim who was injured by C).
2) The decision of this Court is based on the following facts: (a) the defendant, at the time, has not deceiving the victim G; and (b) the defendant
A. In order to establish a joint principal offender as prescribed in Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it is necessary to implement a crime through a functional control over the criminal intent, which is a subjective requirement, based on the intention of joint processing and objective requirements. Here, the intention of joint processing is not sufficient to recognize another person’s criminal act but to accept it without restraint, and it is not sufficient to say that “a joint principal offender is transferred to one another’s criminal act by taking advantage of another person’s criminal act.”
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do6027, Aug. 30, 2012). (B)
In the instant case where the Defendant consistently complained for the detention from the investigative agency to the court of the trial, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first instance court and the court of the trial, namely, ① the victim was present at the court of the first instance and the court of the trial, as a witness, and all the statements in the facts charged were made from C, and there was no investment solicitation from the Defendant, whereas the Defendant testified to the effect that he filed a complaint with C, as he was the representative director of the instant company, ② the Defendant was present at the court of the first instance and the court of the trial, and the Defendant was present at the court of the first instance and the court of the trial to “at the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant was not aware of the participation of the instant fraud,” with the following purport.