(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.19 2017노9035



The judgment below

Of them, the parts against Defendant A, B, I, and J shall be reversed.


A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B, for two years.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant J’s assertion of mistake of the facts by Defendant J left China with the knowledge of Bosishing criminal organization, and the fact that Defendant J remains in China since it did not have any way to return to China even after it became aware of the fact, was limited to the fact that it did not intend to join the criminal organization.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant J guilty of the admission of a criminal organization is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Defendant A, B, C, D, I, and J asserts that the Defendants were too unafford with respect to the sentence of each court below against Defendant A, B, D, and J (two years and six months of imprisonment; Defendant B; Defendant C; Defendant C: two years of imprisonment; Defendant D: 10 months of imprisonment; Defendant I and J: each one year of imprisonment) and the prosecutor is too unafford and unfair.

2) As to the sentence of the lower court against Defendant E, F, H, and G (as for one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, community service hours, 80 hours in community service, and Defendant G: two years of suspended execution in eight months of imprisonment), the prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor is too unfasible and unfair.

2. In full view of all the circumstances, prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal as to Defendant B’s reasons for appeal, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the confiscation, even though it is reasonable to confiscate it, in full view of the following: (a) the fact that it constitutes “goods provided to criminal conduct” under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act; and (b) the fact that the main contact with Defendant B was received by using a mobile phone; and (c) the fact that it is reasonable to confiscate it.

The judgment below

Since the prosecutor also appealed against Defendant B, the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change is not applicable, and the prosecutor has expressed his opinion that the above No. 1 should be forfeited at the trial of the party, so the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as is.

3. Defendant J.