1. As to the grounds of appeal on the organization and members of a crime group, even if the nature of the crime group differs from the legitimate organization, and it appears that the crime group's continuous unity as an organization is somewhat unstable due to its nature, and even if the command system is not always clear inside and outside of the country, the relationship between the members was assembled in accordance with the special rules of the group and the command is formed through a command or a command, and the power is exercised as an organization or a group. In light of the fact that the "organization for the purpose of crime" as provided in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), the "organization for the purpose of crime" is a combination formed by a specific group under the common purpose of the above Act, and is equipped with a minimum command system to lead the organization or to maintain order inside and outside of the organization. Thus, the crime group may continue to be established in various forms, and as long as it does not require a fixed term of punishment, its composition or joining the organization, the organization's name and strong form or procedure of joining the organization.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7378, Nov. 29, 2007). In addition, “the leader” under Article 4(1)1 of the Act refers to a person who leads the activities of an organization to the head of the head of the relevant criminal organization. “the leader” does not necessarily need to be one person, and two or more leaders may take part in the activities by sharing the roles of two or more leaders. As such, if one takes part in the activities of an organization and the person who leads all organizational activities in the hinterland of the criminal organization and takes part in the activities of the members in front, all two persons can be recognized as the leader of the criminal organization.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4205, Sept. 29, 2005). According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.