beta
(영문) 대법원 1970. 3. 10. 선고 70도163 판결

[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][집18(1)형,040]

Main Issues

The meaning of the phrase "at least two persons jointly" under Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Summary of Judgment

When two or more persons jointly commit a crime, it requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. It is limited to the case where several persons recognize the injury or assault committed by other persons on the same opportunity at the same place, and used it to inflict an injury or assault on them.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 of the Punishment of Violences Act

Escopics

Defendant 1 and one other

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

Judgment of the lower court

Daegu District Court Decision 69No45 delivered on November 7, 1969, Daegu District Court Decision 69No45 delivered on November 7, 1969

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that two or more co-offenders exist in so-called co-offenders relationship between them. It is reasonable that only if several persons recognize the injury or assault committed by others on the same opportunity at the same time and inflict an injury or assault on them by using the same opportunity, and compared with the records of each evidence and other evidence pointed out in the arguments, Defendant 2 does not call Defendant 1, who was the victim without the participation in the fighting between Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 1, and asked the fighting with himself, and it can be recognized that there was a fighting between them. Thus, the court below is justified in holding that Defendant 1 did not jointly commit the act of violence by Defendant 2, or that Defendant 2 did not jointly commit the act of violence by Defendant 1, or that Defendant 2 did not commit the act of violence by the victim, and that each of the facts charged against Defendant 2's violation of the rules of evidence or the punishment of each of the Defendants 1 and 2, and therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Judge Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Judge)