Whether both persons can be recognized as "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act if they share the roles of a person who directs all organizational activities in the hinterland of the crime organization and a person who takes charge of the command of the members of the organization (affirmative)

The term "the leader" as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and leads the activities of an organization through the head of the head of the relevant criminal organization, and it does not necessarily require one person. Therefore, if a person takes charge of all organizational activities in the hinterland of the "mampath" which is a criminal organization and a person who takes charge of the command of the members of the organization, both persons may be recognized as the leader of the "mampath".

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeong-won et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 91No973 delivered on May 24, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

57 days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

The defendant and his defense counsel (including the public defender) also examine the grounds for appeal.

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, the defendant organized the organization of the "Seoul Maspa" with the non-indicted 1, etc., and the above organization is continuously combined with the purpose of committing the crime provided for in the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and has a minimum command system to lead the organization or to maintain internal order. The defendant is the leader of the above "Seoul Maspapa" with the non-indicted 1, and the defendant is the head of the "Seoul Maspa" group, and the defendant directs all the organization activities in the behind the organization, and the non-indicted 1 shared the role of the members of the organization. It is justified in the decision of the court below that there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the crime of organization of a criminal organization provided for in subparagraph 1 of

In addition, even according to the record, the above "Seoul High Court" did not have any substance as an independent criminal organization, and it cannot be deemed that only the subordinate organization of the criminal organization consisting of Non-Indicted 2 as a leader is a mere subordinate organization of the criminal organization consisting of non-Indicted 2. Thus, even if the defendant was indicated in the facts charged against Non-Indicted 2 against whom the indictment was instituted as a single behavior commander of the above "Uririripapa", it cannot be deemed that it is contradictory to the fact-finding of the court below that deemed the defendant as the leader of the above "Uripapapa" in this case.

In addition, the term "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to the person who directs and leads the activities of the organization as the head of the head of the crime organization concerned, and there is no need for one person per half-time (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2695, Feb. 26, 191) and two or more leaders may act by sharing their roles. Thus, the court below recognized that both the defendant and non-indicted 1 are the leader of the "mampath" with the same purport, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the leader of the crime organization, such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)