Defendant 11 shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months for each crime entered in the judgment of the court.

Defendant 1, Defendant 3 (Defendant 2), Defendant 4, Defendant 7, Defendant 10 (Defendant 3 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), Defendant 12 (Defendant 5 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), and Defendant 11-2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 of the Prosecutor’s appeal as to the guilty portion, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 11 of the Prosecutor’s appeal as to the guilty portion, and Defendant 11 of the acquitted portion, respectively, are dismissed.

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

(i)the prosecutor;

The sentence of the court below (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

2) Defendant

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of interference with business and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) by misunderstanding the facts, even though he did not interfere with the victim Nonindicted 1’s business by force, and did not force the victim Nonindicted 1 to release a fake weapon. In addition, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against the Defendant by misunderstanding the facts, although the Defendant did not act as the head of a manual for the dissemination of nuclear power, and did not instruct Nonindicted 3

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Determination

1) misunderstanding of facts - Reasons for appeal by Defendant 1

First of all, we examine the problem of interference with business and joint conflict with the victim non-indicted 1.

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, in full view of the defendant's partial statement in the court below, non-indicted 5, defendant 2, non-indicted 6, and co-defendant 8's statement at the investigative agency and court, each prosecutor's statement at the prosecutor's office (written interrogation of suspect), non-indicted 7, and non-indicted 6's statement at the police (written interrogation of suspect), investigation report (the summary of the victim's statement and confiscated materials), investigation report (related to video CD analysis), investigation report (the document of video CD analysis), and investigation report (Attachment to the judgment of conviction of accomplice in the case), the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Next, this paper examines the crime organization activities and collective confinement related to the victim non-indicted 4.

Although the Defendant denies the fact that he is an executive officer as the head of the Suwon radio wave behavior register, according to the records, the staff of the Suwon radio wave who was aware of the Defendant’s behavior register, the next, and the large amount of punishment. The Defendant also recognized in the prosecutor’s investigation process that he was the head of the commission register of the Suwon radio wave, and the Defendant was found guilty of the Defendant on the facts constituting the crime including the contents of the behavior register. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant’s conviction on the head of the action register of the Suwon radio wave or the executive officer constituted the head of the action register of the Suwon

The Defendant denies that he did not direct the victim Nonindicted 4 to take the victim Nonindicted 4 to himself, but the lower court, considering the following circumstances in light of the circumstances that are appropriately written in the reasons for the judgment, may sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant’s instruction calls for the place of the crime and takes part in the crime, and that the Defendant attempted the victim to take part in the crime.

In addition to the Defendant, there was only 14 persons who drink in a criminal place. However, the Defendant and victim Nonindicted 4 told the Defendant that they were punished for vision, and the victim called the Defendant to be a comprehensive sexual wave plant. Since the Defendant was punished, the Defendant was immediately traveling on behalf of the victim, and there was no longer time for the manual staff to have arrived until the Defendant arrive at the criminal place. Nevertheless, it is difficult to conclude that the manual radio waves staff have arrived at the criminal scene to assert that they were drunk and substitute driving on behalf of the Defendant, and that there was no other reliable statement. In view of the fact that there was no need for the victim to independently view that there was a large amount of 10 or more manual staff, not the Defendant at the time of the crime scene, Nonindicted 4, including Nonindicted 9, the Defendant got out of the prison market at the time of the crime scene, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to view that the Defendant was able to independently talk with the Defendant at the time of the crime scene, and that it was difficult to view the Defendant’s 10 or more sexual wave staff at the scene of the Defendant.

2) Whether unfair sentencing is unreasonable - Both grounds for appeal

The most severe punishment among the crimes committed by the Defendant is the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.) and the statutory punishment is imprisonment with prison labor for life or for not less than seven years. In addition, the Defendant was sentenced to three times suspension of execution by committing a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act prior to the said crime. The Defendant appears to have committed a crime against not only the victim non-indicted 1 but also the majority of merchants near the nearest period of time by working as a member from the time the hydroelectric wave was constituted. Moreover, the Defendant is clear that he is an executive member as a ledger of hydroelectric wave behavior.

However, in light of the contents of the most serious crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.), it appears that it was an contingent crime in which a part of the trial expense was injured and the punishment was imposed due to the defendant's personal satisfaction, and the contents of the criminal act appear to have occurred to cause serious punishment compared to the location and weight of the defendant in the criminal organization. In addition, if the crime was committed only at the time of the beginning of the crime, the mistake of the victim seems to have contributed to considerable portion of the crime. In addition, as the business of the victim non-indicted 1 is assessed as a duty to protect the victim in the crime of interference with business, it is true that the value and necessity of the protection was not increased in light of general cases. Meanwhile, the defendant did not have any history other than the criminal record of having been sentenced, and there was no history of having been sentenced to imprisonment by not later than 2008 after 203.

In light of the above circumstances, the contents of the judgment sentenced to the punishment were punished as a crime of joint injury to police officers along with the staff in charge of hydroelectric wave, the sentencing of the court below is appropriate, too weak, or unreasonable, considering all factors of sentencing that are shown in the pleadings, such as equity in the case where the sentence was received simultaneously with the final judgment, details of the crime of interference with business, and the age of the defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal against Defendant 2 by the prosecutor

A. The prosecutor asserts that the court below acquitted each of the public conflicts by misunderstanding the facts.

B. First, we examine the part concerning the facts charged against Nonindicted 11.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that on July 26, 2006, the defendant borrowed 5 million won from the victim by threatening the victim non-indicted 11 on July 26, 2006, and then, the defendant demanded the victim to waive 3.1 million won by paying only 1.9 million won thereafter and by delaying the date of repayment.

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, although there are Nonindicted 1’s written statements by the police and the prosecutor’s office, and the police’s written statements by Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 11’s written statements by the police that seem to correspond to this part of the facts charged, the admissibility of Nonindicted 11’s written statements by denying the formal and actual authenticity of the protocol at the court below, and Nonindicted 11’s written statements by the investigative agency is inconsistent with Nonindicted 11’s written statements by Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 1’s husband’s own husband’s own husband’s own husband’s written statement, and he was sent to the court of the court of the court below that there was a return of more money than 11, and that Nonindicted 11 was already paid interest or part of the principal before the formation of the case from the Defendant, and that the principal was returned after the fact that it was presented by the prosecutor is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged without any reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the lower court that acquitted this part of the facts charged is acceptable.

C. Next, we examine the part concerning the facts charged against the victim non-indicted 1.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant demanded the victim non-indicted 1 to sublease his commercial sex acts (○○○) operated by the victim non-indicted 1 (the victim non-indicted 1) to another person on July 2007, and the defendant made the third person sublease his deposit amount of KRW 30 million,000,000,000, which was less than that of the victim at the time of the threat, thereby allowing the third party to gain profits equivalent to KRW 20,000,000,000, and the third party received the difference of KRW 1,000,000 for the introduction

The evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged is the statement at the investigation agency of Nonindicted Party 1 and the court of original instance. The victim is not only consistent and clearly specified the amount of the lease deposit that he paid to the lessor, but also recognized that the lease deposit was lower than the amount that he owes to the lessor. Nonindicted Party 1 stated in the court of original instance that even before the defendant was paid 1 million won to the defendant for accompanying in the region, which is consistent with the defendant's defense, and that such content corresponds to the defendant's defense, and that the amount of damage should be clearly specified as a crime concerning property legal interests and interests. In light of the above, even if there are circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the guilty of this part of the facts charged merely based on the above evidence.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that acquitted of this part of the facts charged.

3. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 3

A. Whether it is erroneous of facts

The defendant asserts that on August 2006, the defendant was guilty of all the charges against the defendant, although he did not engage in any act that could be deemed as the redevelopment site of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area, rather than the removal site of the new coal redevelopment apartment as stated in the facts charged, rather than the redevelopment site of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area of the area.

At the lower court, the Defendant asserted that there was no space between the place of crime in front of the crime at the sea-gym game site. However, the Defendant asserted that other crimes were committed at each scene of crime, but there was no intention of the activities of the organization of crime, and there was no action to evaluate them as the activities.

As shown in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the related evidence submitted by the defendant for the time when Non-Indicted 12's testimony and trial of the witness of the trial at the trial at the court below is inconsistent with the contents of the trial at the court below. The judgment of the court below that convicted all the charges against the defendant is just in light of all the circumstances such as the reasons and circumstances that the accomplice, including the defendant, was gathered at the place of the crime, the reasons why the accomplice, the contents of the statement of the accomplice, and the location of the defendant's book in the hydroelectric wave, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, as well as the reasons for the judgment of the court below.

The testimony of Nonindicted Party 16, 17, and 12 by the witness of the trial court is difficult to believe it in light of the above facts recognized as such, or is insufficient to reverse the above judgment.

B. Whether to impose unfair sentencing

The defendant asserts that the sentence of imprisonment by the court below is too unreasonable.

The crime committed by the defendant constitutes a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.) and the statutory penalty is two or more years, and the court below sentenced the lowest sentence that can be sentenced by discretionary mitigation despite being a crime during the period of repeated crime. In light of the fact that the defendant was sentenced to the punishment and the suspended sentence, and that some of the past records clearly expressed violence inclination in the case of a crime during the suspended sentence, the sentence of the court below cannot be deemed to be somewhat unreasonable.

4. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4 and the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 4

A. As to the prosecutor's appeal

On July 6, 2006, the prosecutor asserts that the court below acquitted the victim in the same manner at the same place around 02:00 of August 26, 2006, on the facts charged that the defendant, in collaboration with the non-indicted 18 and the non-indicted 19 work together with the victim's non-indicted 18, 90,000 won of the drinking value from the drinking victim with his organized violence. < Amended by Act No. 7871, Aug. 26, 2006>

However, as indicated in the reasoning of the judgment by the court below, there are each police statement and each statement of statement about Nonindicted 19, 18, which are evidence related to this part as well as each statement of statement related to this part, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the grounds of innocence, the circumstances stated by the court below on the grounds of innocence, the defendant's drinking to the defendant for whom Nonindicted 18 was released, and the victim had changed the drinking value to Nonindicted 18, and the victim did not demand the defendant to change the drinking value in the above entertainment tavern. In addition, the above evidence alone cannot be recognized that the defendant, without any reasonable doubt as to this part of the facts charged, has renounced the amount equivalent to the drinking value to the victim by threatening Nonindicted 19 jointly with Nonindicted 18 and caused the victim to waive the drinking value. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the

B. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4

1) Whether there is a mistake of facts

A) Defendant 4 asserts that, on August 2006, Defendant 4 was guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that he did not have a cross-section on the game room in front of the ocean-going game room located at the Domine-ri, which was the sea-going in the Domine of Hasungsung, and that

However, in full view of the relevant evidence, such as the witness Nonindicted 14, 13, and 15’s each legal statement, the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 20, Defendant 9, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 21, the police interrogation protocol against Defendant 9, and Nonindicted 15, the police protocol against Nonindicted 13, and Nonindicted 14, the police protocol against Nonindicted 13, and the investigation report (attached to the verdict of guilt of the case), the court below recognized that Defendant 4 went to the scene of the crime as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, and that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently convicted.

B) In addition, Defendant 4 asserts that the lower court convicted Defendant 4 of this part of the facts charged by misunderstanding the fact and finding the guilty of this part of the charges, even though he did not have a cross-section on the front path of the Gyeonggi-do Cheongwon-si, the date of the end of December 2006.

However, in full view of the relevant evidence, such as the witness Non-Indicted 14 and 13's statement in the court below, the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of co-defendant 4 in the court of first instance as to co-defendant 4 in the court of first instance, the police interrogation protocol in the court of first instance as to Non-Indicted 14 and 13, each police protocol in the police as to Non-Indicted 22 and 13, and the investigation report (Attachment of a final judgment of conviction in the case), it is recognized that the defendant 4 went to the scene of the crime as stated in the reasons for the judgment, and

2) Whether unreasonable sentencing is unfair

Defendant 4 asserts that the sentencing of the lower court (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

However, the Defendant had previously been sentenced to suspended sentence due to a previous crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.), and committed a crime that acts as an organization of a criminal organization during the repeated crime period. The statutory penalty of this crime is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than two years, and the lower court was sentenced to discretionary mitigation in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and thus, the applicable sentence is imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year. Nevertheless, the lower court sentenced the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than ten months, which is lower than the applicable sentence, and such sentence of the lower court is too unreasonable.

As above, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to statutory punishment; however, as seen earlier, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and with respect to sentencing, only the defendant appealed, in accordance with the principle of prohibition against disadvantageous change under Article 368 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which prohibits the defendant from imposing a sentence higher than the court below. Thus, the above illegality of the court below shall not affect the judgment, and thus, the judgment of the court below shall not be reversed.

5. Determination on the grounds of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 5

The prosecutor asserts that the court below found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the Defendant assaulted the victim Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 23, and Defendant 6 by using dangerous things in order to continue and maintain the violent crime organizations at the location of the victim’s non-indicted 22, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 23, and Defendant 6 at the meeting of the staff in charge of the hydroelectric Station radio operator around 21:0 on July 206.

원심이 판결이유에 적절하게 적은 바와 같이, 이 부분에 부합하는 증거로는 공소외 22와 제1심 공동피고인 4에 대한 각 경찰 진술조서가 있다. 제1심 공동피고인 4에 대한 경찰 진술조서의 내용은 피고인으로부터 맞은 기억은 있으나 언제인지 정확하지 않다는 것이다. 공소외 22에 대한 경찰 진술조서의 내용은 이 부분 공소사실에 부합하나 이 증거에 대하여는 원진술자의 법정출석과 피고인에 의한 반대신문이 이루어지지 못하였을 뿐만 아니라, 그 내용에는 고등동 숙소에서 피고인 6을 포함하여 ‘빳다’를 맞았다는 사실이 포함되어 있으나, 기록에 의하면 피고인 6은 당시 수원역전파에 가입하지도 않은 상태였음을 알 수 있어 그 신빙성이나 증명력을 인정하기 어려우므로 이를 주된 증거로 하여 공소사실을 인정하는 것은 허용되기 어렵다.

Therefore, the above evidence alone is not sufficient to recognize the guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the judgment of the court below that acquitted this part of the facts charged is acceptable.

6. Determination on the grounds of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 6

The prosecutor asserts that the court below acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly, etc.) by misunderstanding the facts.

In light of the fact that Nonindicted 24 was sentenced to the final judgment of innocence regarding the same charge, Nonindicted 10, 25’s statement time and process of the statement made by Defendant 6 at the time of the crime, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 25’s statement, Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 25 did not know Defendant 6 at the time of the crime, and these were considered to have a large number of face of the staff members of the Suwon Station in the short time, Defendant 12’s prosecutor’s statement on the premise that the contents of the defendant’s statement made by the prosecutor are accurate memory, and Defendant 6’s behavior did not have any content at the time of the defendant 6, it is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the charge, and therefore, the lower court that

7. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 7

A. Whether it is erroneous of facts

The Defendant asserts that the lower court convicted him of this part of the facts charged, by misunderstanding the fact, even though there was no gap for the purpose of making a war and the sending of the Suwon-si in front of the Seowon-si of Gyeonggi-do, which was located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si.

Comprehensively taking account of the witness Nonindicted 13 and 14’s statement in the lower court, the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of co-defendant 4 in the first instance trial, the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation of co-defendant 4 in the first instance trial, the police protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 13 in the protocol of interrogation of the suspect, and investigation report (attached to the final judgment of conviction of the case) with respect to Nonindicted 13, the Defendant was at the scene

B. Whether to impose unfair sentencing

The defendant asserts that the sentencing of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

In light of the fact that the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.), which is found guilty, is two or more years of imprisonment, and that the statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) is one or more years of imprisonment if the defendant does not choose a fine, the defendant committed the crime within the probation period despite being sentenced to three years of suspended execution and two years of probation for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.) in 205, the defendant committed the crime within the probation period; the defendant had the record of being sentenced to suspended execution and sentence; the defendant had been sentenced to a fine for the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (the act of organization, etc.) including without a license in 207; the vehicle operated by the defendant is a vehicle of another person without being insured, but the defendant cannot find a trace for the victim of traffic accident.

The sentencing of the court below seems to be somewhat uneasible and it is not recognized that it is too unreasonable.

8. Determination on the grounds of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 8

The prosecutor asserts that the court below acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.).

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant subscribed to the dissemination of the source of water by the invitation of Non-Indicted 26 and 24 in early March 2007.

Although it is acknowledged that the defendant interfered with the duties of the defendant 11 and the victim non-indicted 1, 207, the crime committed by joining the crime organization is an immediate crime established by joining the crime organization, and the time of joining the crime is not only an important requirement to specify the crime, but also an element to determine whether the statute of limitations for the crime has expired, it is not permissible to recognize the activity of the organization as a member of the crime organization and punish the defendant guilty as being a member of the crime organization (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do99, Jun. 8, 1993, etc.). It is not impossible to prove that the person soliciting joining the crime was specified as a member of another crime organization, and even if the investigation was conducted against the members of the crime group, other evidence than the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant has not been submitted in addition to the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant, considering the fact that the defendant denies the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol of the police officer without admissibility, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the guilty in this part of the charges.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the facts charged is justified.

9. Determination on the grounds of appeal against the prosecutor's defendant 9

The prosecutor asserts that the sentence of the court below (two years of suspended sentence in August) is too unhued and unfair.

The statutory penalty for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc. of an organization, etc.) with more severe criminal punishment is imprisonment for not less than one year and six months. The defendant's crime constitutes a typical group of organized violence groups, which requires strict punishment in terms of the illegality of the act or the possibility of social harm and injury.

However, the Defendant was sentenced to two years of imprisonment for a crime of escaping from military service after committing this crime, and was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.) at the beginning of 2008. The Defendant lost an opportunity to be punished twice or once for this crime, and one of them includes a strong crime related to this crime, namely, joining in and activities for hydroelectric wave.

In light of this point, the illegality of the act should be very large, but unlike the majority of other co-defendants, the sentencing of the court below which decided the period of punishment and sentenced the suspension of execution on the punishment through the mitigation and discretionary mitigation for the accused who led to the confession of all crimes, unlike the majority of other co-defendants, is judged to be sufficiently understood and appropriate.

10. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 10

A. Whether the facts charged are unspecified

The defendant asserts that a public prosecution is null and void in violation of the provisions of Acts, because the facts charged are not specified.

Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the time, place, and method of a crime shall be specified (Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). Since the institution of a public prosecution is aimed at limiting the object of a trial against the court and facilitating the exercise of the defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant, the institution of the public prosecution is sufficient to specify the facts causing the public prosecution by pointing out the time, place, method, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish from other facts in light of the nature of the crime charged, and even if part of the facts charged are unclear, the facts charged can be specified in accordance with the stated facts. Thus, if there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of the defense right, it cannot be said that the facts charged are not specified solely on the same ground. In addition, if a request for specification of the facts charged more strictly than necessary, it may interfere with the institution of the public prosecution and the maintenance of it, i.e., the limit to specify the facts charged, which does not conflict with the double indictment or prescription, the extent and method of territorial jurisdiction, and the composition of the elements of the crime (see, etc.).

As to the facts charged against the defendant, although the date and time of the crime, the time and time of the crime, the place, the method and the time required for the crime, etc. are clearly stated, it cannot be deemed that the defendant violated the provisions of the law by stating the facts charged to the extent that it is impossible to specify the fact because the time, place and method of the crime are not specified. Ultimately, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Error of mistake

The defendant asserts that he withdraws from the hydroelectric wave around March 2006, and around December 2006, the defendant delivered the restaurant with the delivery date, and the court below did not have the presence of the Gyeonggi-do Office, which is the place of crime, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged.

In full view of the witness Nonindicted 13 and 14’s written statement in the lower court, the prosecutor’s protocol of interrogation against Co-Defendant 4 in the first instance trial, the police interrogation protocol against Co-Defendant 4 in the first instance trial, Nonindicted 14 and 13, the police protocol against Nonindicted 13 in the police protocol, the police protocol against Nonindicted 14 and 13, and the investigation report (Attachment to the judgment of conviction against the accomplice in the case), the lower court’s judgment is justifiable, since it was found that

Nonindicted 27, at the restaurant in which he operated, stated that the Defendant was working on December 2006, and that there was no room for the Defendant at the end of the year. Defendant 3 of the Party Witness stated that he was present at the meal of the staff in charge of hydroelectric wave operations after having arrived at the Gyeonggi-do Office after the completion of the situation, and he did not have the Defendant. However, in light of the above evidence and testimony timing, Defendant 3 and the relationship between Defendant 3 and the Defendant, such testimony is difficult to believe or it is insufficient to reverse the above conclusion.

11. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 11 and the prosecutor against Defendant 11

A. As to the prosecutor's appeal

The prosecutor asserts that the court below found the defendant not guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) and intimidation by misunderstanding the facts.

First of all, we examine the issues of joint conflict.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is that the defendant jointly with the non-indicted 28 and 29, and on January 22, 2010, the defendant acquired property profits equivalent to the above amount by making the defendant 120,50 won drinking alcohol and drinking alcohol in an amount equivalent to the 120,500 won while driving organized violence, which was managed by the non-indicted 22, 201.

In full view of Nonindicted 30’s legal statement, Nonindicted 28 and 29’s police interrogation protocol, Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court’s trial, etc., the Defendant, etc. contacted Nonindicted 30 in advance with Nonindicted 30 to drink in the said entertainment tavern, and the drinking value was borne by Nonindicted 30. In light of such circumstances, even if the Defendant, etc. informed his employees of the fact that he was organized violence, or carried out a somewhat harsh act, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant, etc. had an intention to attack. Therefore, the lower court’s determination that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to readily conclude this part of the charges.

The following points are examined as to intimidation.

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the defendant requested the victim, at around 20:10 on January 24, 2010, the victim non-indicted 2, who was located in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, 1 (hereinafter referred to as "1 omitted), to refer to the case where Non-indicted 31 and Defendant 12, who was an employee of the above main branch office, assaulted Non-indicted 30, which was the victim of the crime, and the victim and the employees of the above main branch office did not answer or report the above assault case; and (b) the victim expressed his attitude that the victim and the employees of the main branch office might be threatened by harm if they did not respond to such demand.

The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on this part on the ground that there was evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged on the part of the charges on the following grounds: (a) Nonindicted 30’s legal statement and the police statement and the police statement on Nonindicted 2; (b) Nonindicted 30’s statement were talked about Nonindicted 2; and (c) Nonindicted 2’s legal attendance and cross-examination on Nonindicted 2 were not conducted; and (d) the police statement on Nonindicted 2

However, at the police station, Nonindicted Party 2 stated, “Around 24, 2010 a.m., 8:10 p.m., Defendant 11 was found to be mixed, and he was found to him. In addition, Nonindicted Party 2 made a statement at the police station that “I would like to make an agreement between Nonindicted Party 31 and Defendant 12, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to make an appearance, and that I would like to make an appearance. I would like to make an appearance. I would like to make a statement at the police station, and that I would like to make an agreement with Defendant 2 on the face of I would like to make a statement at the court.” Meanwhile, at the prosecution, Nonindicted Party 2 tried to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see the head of the department, and that I would like to see that I would like to make an agreement with Defendant 3.mar.”

Although Nonindicted 2’s written statement by the police does not appear at the court of the original person and cross-examination by the accused on the contents of Nonindicted 2’s written statement, the exact purport of the statement can be clearly recognized. According to Nonindicted 30’s written statement by the prosecution and Nonindicted 30’s investigative agency and the court’s written statement, it can be acknowledged that the strong probative value of the statement

Therefore, according to the above evidence, even if this part of the facts charged was found guilty, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is insufficient evidence as to this part, and the court below committed an unlawful act affecting the judgment by misunderstanding the facts.

B. As to the grounds for appeal by the defendant

1) Whether there is a mistake of facts

The Defendant asserts that, around 03:00 on December 8, 2007, the Defendant did not have any relation to the entertainment drinking house located in Seo-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, which is the place of crime, and that, around 02:0 on March 8, 2010, the Defendant requested drinking as a service under the influence of alcohol at the chip site, which is the place of crime, and that, on March 8, 2010, the Defendant did not pay alcohol value, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all the charges of collective confinement and the joint attack against Nonindicted 32.

First of all, in relation to collective confinement, according to the prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the defendant, defendant 12, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant 12, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant 3, the police interrogation protocol against the non-indicted 4, 10, and the police protocol against the non-indicted 25, the court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the court below, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant not only went to an entertainment drinking club but also participated in the

Next, in relation to the joint conflict with the victim non-indicted 32, according to each police's interrogation protocol against the victim non-indicted 33 and 34, and the police's statement against the non-indicted 32, although the person who paid the drinking value in this part was already at the time of committing the crime, the person who paid the drinking value in this part was already in the situation before the order of the two weeks, and the victim claimed the defendant for the additional monetary value related to the ordered two weeks, and refused to pay it. In full view of these circumstances, this part of the facts charged is sufficiently convicted.

Furthermore, the Defendant asserts that under the influence of alcohol, a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) was committed in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder. The burden of proof on this part is borne by the Defendant. According to the record, the Defendant is recognized to have been under the influence of alcohol, but it is difficult to find that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently

2) Whether unreasonable sentencing is unfair

The defendant asserts that the sentencing of the court below (one year of imprisonment, eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

As seen earlier, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the crime of intimidation, and determined a single sentence by destroying the conviction part of the case No. 2010 high-class 270, and therefore, further examination is not conducted as to whether or not the crime of incompetence on this part is unreasonable. Meanwhile, in regard to the crime of 2010 high-class 60, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) is punished by imprisonment for more than two years, and the Defendant, even though he was under the repeated period at the time of committing the crime, was sentenced to a maximum sentence by discretionary mitigation, such sentencing cannot be deemed unfair.

12. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 12 and the prosecutor against Defendant 12

With respect to the sentence of the court below (eight months of imprisonment), the prosecutor asserts that the prosecutor is too unfased, and the defendant is too unfasible and unfair.

The statutory punishment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.) is more than two years, and the defendant has been sentenced several times of punishment, and the defendant has committed this crime even during the period of repeated crime. In addition, even though the defendant was sentenced to punishment for the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization and activity of organization, etc.) after this crime, such punishment is the minimum sentence that has been mitigated by imprisonment for one year. In addition, the sum of the criminal acts committed before and the criminal acts committed by the defendant are larger than that of Nonindicted 3, 9, 35, and 36 claiming equity. In light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case during the period of repeated crime, it is difficult to accept the defendant’s assertion in the light of the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case. In this regard, it is questionable whether there is a need to reduce the statutory punishment through concurrent treatment, and whether it is necessary to set the sentence under the status of punishment by mitigation

However, considering the fact that all of the crimes committed by the Defendant as a member of the organization of hydroelectric wave is closely related to each other, the degree of the Defendant’s participation in the crime, the nature or content of the crime at issue is completely different from that of the crime in violation of the Military Service Act, and the fact that all of the crimes committed in the appellate trial are actively supporting the welfare organization, it is recognized that the punishment determined by the lower court is appropriate.

13. Determination on the grounds of appeal against Defendant 13 by the prosecutor

The prosecutor asserts that the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant not guilty.

As stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the legal principles on the concept of "activities" under Article 4 (1) of the "Act on the Punishment of Violences, Etc." and the defendant's act included in the facts charged is that the defendant contacted the non-indicted 10 by telephone from the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 10, and let the non-indicted 10 enter the defendant as a "probial entertainment drinking house" by means of telephone. The defendant was lower than the non-indicted 3, 35, and 9, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant knew of the on-site situation other than the above telephone, and it was anticipated that the defendant would be resolved smoothly if the situation was about the non-indicted 4 with the non-indicted 4 first and the situation was about the non-indicted 4, the defendant's act of distributing the non-indicted 9 et al. to the non-indicted 4 et al. constitutes the defendant's act of organizing the organization of the non-indicted 1 or the defendant's act of expressing the non-indicted 1.

14. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 14

The defendant asserts that the defendant did not commit violence or threat to the victim non-indicted 4, and that the defendant's boarding of the vehicle was merely accompanied by the victim non-indicted 4, because he was aware of the victim's non-indicted 4, but the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged by misconception of the fact.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant was aware of the fact that the defendant was organized violence between the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 3, and the defendant was the only person who could identify the defendant 1 and the punishment for the manual staff who arrive at the scene considering the trial expense of the defendant 1 and the victim, and the defendant was multiple employees around the time of the victim's entrance into the room, and the defendant was living in the room where the victim was a victim. The defendant was living in the room with the manual radio waves steering staff and the sexualnam comprehensive market steering staff, and the victim took the process from the non-indicted 10, and the non-indicted 3 instructed his assistant staff to "I am a large number of son. I am waiting for the crime." The defendant did not leave his own vehicle, and the defendant did not have any implied relation with the defendant's interview with the police, and the defendant did not have any specific reasons to recognize the defendant's interview with the police, and the defendant did not have any legal relation with the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances or legal principles, even if the defendant did not directly use violence or intimidation against the victim, the relevant evidence does not lack to acknowledge the guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the appeal against the purport that he/she was accompanied by the victim cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is just.

15. Conclusion

As seen above, the appeal filed by Defendant 1, 3, 4, 7, 10, 12, and 14 and the appeal filed by Defendant 11-2, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 13 on the guilty portion of Defendant 11-2, and the appeal filed by the prosecutor as to Defendant 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 12, and 11 on the guilty portion of Defendant 11 and on the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint conflict) on January 22, 2010 are all dismissed.

However, among the judgment below, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 11's non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below as to the crime of intimidation should be found guilty on this part. Meanwhile, the above crime of intimidation and the crime of intimidation which the court below should be found guilty on the defendant 11 should be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of punishment increased by concurrent crimes pursuant to Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to the concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant 11 should be sentenced to a single sentence. Thus, the conviction part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 11 cannot be exempted from all reversal. Accordingly, with respect to the acquitted part of each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below as to the defendant 11's conviction and intimidation, the judgment of the court below on the unjust sentencing is reversed without omitting the judgment of the defendant 11 on the non-guilty part of each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below, and it is again decided as follows.

[However, the court below's decision No. 16 of the 8 is clearly erroneous when compared to the point of time when the source radio waves are made. Thus, the court below's decision's correction to the "dateless border" of the second half of the 1989.

[2010 Highest 270]

Defendant 11:

1. In collaboration with Nonindicted 33 and 34, around 02:0 on March 8, 2010, the victim Nonindicted 32 was provided with 70,000 won chip 1 disease from the chip chip chip that was managed by Nonindicted 32 on March 8, 2010, and the victim demanded the payment of the price, Defendant 11 said victim demanded the payment of the price. Nonindicted 33 and 34, as Nonindicted 33, and 34, refused to pay the price, and Defendant 11 et al. knew that it was an organized violence, and led Defendant 11 et al. to concentrate on the demand of the said victim for the payment, thereby obtaining financial benefits equivalent to the above amount, and acquiring financial benefits by threatening the victim.

2. On January 24, 2010, at 20:10, the victim non-indicted 2, the victim non-indicted 31 and defendant 12 mentioned the case of assaulting Non-indicted 30, a main employee of the above main employee, at around 04:25 of the same day, when the victim non-indicted 2, who was in Suwon-ro 1 in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, Suwon-si (hereinafter omitted) was in charge of organized violence, and at around 04:25 of the same day, the victim mentioned the case of assaulting Non-indicted 30, a main employee of the above main employee, and expressed the attitude that the above victim or the employees of the main office did not respond to the above assault, thereby threatening the above victim.

3. On March 18, 2010, from around 03:30 on March 18, 2010 to around 04:30 on the same day, the victim Nonindicted 32 interfered with the victim Nonindicted 32’s head office business by force by using an appearance from the dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated dedicated tpppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppp

1. The defendant 11's partial statement

1. The legal statement of Non-Indicted 30 of the witness of the court below

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 32, 2, and 30

1. Previous convictions: Criminal records, court rulings No. 2008 Highest 5148, court rulings No. 2008 Highest 141, and investigation reports (the confirmation of the date of release of Defendant 11 of a suspect);

Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (joint conflict, choice of imprisonment), Articles 314(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (Interference with Business, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (Intimidation and Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act [within the limits under the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) as to the aggravation of repeated crimes and the aggravation of repeated crimes for each crime in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 201)]

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes within the scope of the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) concerning the punishment for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. with the largest punishment];

However, Defendant 11 recognized a part of the crime and agreed with some victims, and the amount of economic damage was not much significant. Although the court below found Defendant 11 guilty of a part not guilty of the crime, it is determined that the amount of damage is a major factor in sentencing in the crime itself or in property crime, considering the fact that the amount of damage is a major factor in sentencing, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the Defendant shall be determined by imprisonment for a period of eight months,

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)