B. Whether the participation of the defendant or defense counsel in the examination procedure of witness examination under Article 221-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act is necessary (negative)

(c) Whether an unreshed beer's disease constitutes a dangerous article under Article 3 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

B. According to Article 221-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the participation of the defendant and his/her defense counsel in the examination procedure of witness cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the participation of the defendant and his/her defense counsel is not necessary.

C. Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that “a deadly weapon or other dangerous object” shall include not only a gun, knife, and other things that have the characteristics of killing and injuring a person, but also the use of such things by social norms may cause danger to the other party or a third party. The beer’s disease in an unsatisfyed state shall also constitute a dangerous object.

One hundred days of detention days after appeal shall be included in the defendants' respective principal sentence (the imprisonment of two years and six months for the defendant C, the imprisonment of two years and six months for the defendant D, the imprisonment of one year and six months for the defendant E, and the imprisonment of one year and six months for the defendant E).

(1) An organization for the purpose of committing a crime under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is a continuous combination with many and specified persons under the common purpose of committing a crime under the above Act, and the organization's members may be classified into a number of persons, a number of executives, and a simple subscribers, etc., or have a minimum command and command system capable of leading the organization. However, as long as the organization aims to commit a crime under Article 2 (1) of the above Act by means of violence, it is not necessary to specify whether it aims to commit a crime among the members (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do551 delivered on May 24, 191).

Therefore, the argument that the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is unreasonable is groundless because it is not clear whether the purpose of the crime is specified in Article 2 (1) of the above Act or not.

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the court below organized the new 20th century, which is a criminal organization equipped with the command command command system, by integrating the evidence and dividing it into two titles, wharfs, behavior registers, and behavior units in order to play an entertainment room in the Jung-gu, Busan, Jung-gu, Busan, and Bupyeong-dong, and recognized that the defendants are in the position of general affairs, behavior registers, or action representatives. Such fact-finding cannot be deemed to be justified and in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

A witness F and G’s statement adopted by the court below is about the facts recognized in the course of investigation as a police officer, and cannot be deemed as having been a professional statement or a conical statement, and it cannot be deemed as having no admissibility or credibility. The content of the statement is consistent with Defendant H’s statement at the prosecutor’s office, I, and J. According to the records, the examination of the witness in F and G testimony is not based on the procedure for preservation of evidence under Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but is limited to the case of applying for examination of a witness at the prosecutor’s request under Article 221-2 of the same Act (the Busan District Court 91: 308). The fact that the witness examination was conducted without the presence of the Defendants or defense counsel during that procedure is recognized, but it cannot be said that the participation of the Defendant and defense counsel was not a requisite requirement, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant or defense counsel did not give an opportunity to participate (see Supreme Court Decision 81Do194, Sept. 22, 1981).

2. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant D, his defense counsel, and other points

The court below's decision that recognized the above defendant's criminal facts of violation of the Psychotropic Drugs Control Act and special obstruction of performance of official duties is justified, and there is no evidence of violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the argument that the amount of punishment is inappropriate is not a legitimate ground for appeal

3. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant E’s injury

Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act includes not only a gun, knife, and other things that have the characteristics of killing people, but also a general social norm that could cause danger to the other party or a third party (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do647, Jun. 12, 1984; 84Do647, Jun. 12, 1984; 84Do647, Jun. 12, 198). The judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable, since the beer’s disease in an unsatisfed state shall also constitute a dangerous article. The dissenting opinion

4. As to the ground of appeal on Defendant K’s res judicata

According to the records, the above defendant was indicted as a charge of violation of Article 3 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and was finally convicted for habitual offenders, and there is no further punishment as a crime of violation of Article 4 of the above Act. There is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in each original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho