beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2013.06.20 2012노3525

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Although there was a fact that the Defendants did not pay the drinking value under the influence of alcohol, the court below found the Defendants guilty of all of the facts charged of this case, inasmuch as there was no assault by assaulting the Defendants, such as intending to take a serious bath as stated in the facts charged, or intending to escape from the disease or walking the victim’s mouth, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. Even if it is not an unreasonable sentencing, the lower court’s sentencing (Defendant B: a fine of KRW 5 million, Defendant D: a fine of KRW 2 million) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. requires that two or more persons exist the so-called co-offenders relationship among them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000). In the co-offender relationship that two or more persons jointly process in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal penalty, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Thus, even if the process of the whole conspiracy did not exist, if the combination of intention is made successively or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if the other persons did not participate directly in the execution, they are held liable as co-principal for the act of the public.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do3483 Decided November 10, 200, etc.). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and duly examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., (i) the victim H was investigated by an investigative agency on September 2, 201, following the crime of this case, and (ii) the Defendants did not calculate the ex post facto drinking value from the time when they had been engaged in G entertainment drinking together with Co-Defendant A and C as co-defendants of the court below.