logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.13 2017노4012
특수절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding or legal principles were not involved in the conspiracy of crimes B, D, and A, and there was no request from D for the commission of moving game machinery to a creative source. Since the Defendant was at the scene of the crime and did not directly participate in or assist in the moving of the game machine, it is difficult to view that the Defendant has functional control, which is a requirement for a joint principal offender, as a co-principal.

B. The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for six months, one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the event that one of the union members, who made a determination of misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles, was aware that he/she, without the acceptance of another union member, excluded the union member from taking possession of the union member, and was by himself/herself under his/her control, he/she had the intent to acquire illegal gains in larceny.

In addition, the joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is jointly and severally committed by two or more persons. In order to establish a joint principal offender, it is necessary for the joint principal offender to engage in a crime through functional control based on the joint principal intent and objective requirements, and the joint principal offender is not sufficient to recognize another person's criminal act while he/she does not restrain it, and it should be one of the joint principal offenders to engage in a specific criminal act with another person's intention and to shift his/her own intention by using another person's act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The Defendant came to know that it was around 2010, and thereafter, was registered as a representative director under his name in the process of running various businesses, such as the I Ship Processing Business, Distribution Business, etc., or intended for I to do so.

arrow