Defendant

Kim Woo (Court of Prosecution) and Jin-Jin (Court of Public Trial)

Attorney Cho Young-young

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to six months.

【Criminal Power】

On October 19, 2017, Defendant (Defendant 22) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.) at the Incheon District Court on the grounds that the judgment became final and conclusive on June 28, 2018.

【Criminal Facts】

The Defendant, along with Nonindicted 3, is an employee of the “○○○○m”, a regional violent crime group in Incheon, as well as Nonindicted 3.

Non-Indicted 3 was prosecuted on November 17, 2016, and around May 2015, as the fact that Non-Indicted 3 joined the Incheon District Court and joined the "○○○○mmm" in a trade name coffee shop, etc. located in Incheon ( Address 10 omitted), and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year in the above court on May 19, 2017, and was sentenced to an appellate trial by the Seoul High Court.

Non-Indicted 3’s attempt to avoid the application of a repeated crime by asserting that Non-Indicted 3 was admitted to “○○○○mm” around May 2013, when the period of the above crime was inevitable to sentence for the period of repeated crime, and unlike the confessions made by the existing investigative agency in the trial process, around May 2015, which was in the custody house of Incheon, which was not a prison of May 2015. The Defendant gave testimony in line with Non-Indicted 3’s assertion at the appellate trial of the above Seoul High Court, thereby attempting to assist Non-Indicted 3 to proceed with the trial according to his intention.

At around 15:00 on September 12, 2017, the Defendant appeared and taken an oath in the Seoul High Court Seocho-gu Seoul High Court case No. 302, the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu, as a witness of the above court case No. 2017No1680, the Defendant responded to the defense counsel’s question “When the witness becomes aware of the time when the Defendant actually joined the violent organization,” “I have joined at least 13 years of memory. I do not know that he was aware that he was a member of the prison, but he was aware that he was a member of the prison,” and the presiding judge asked “I have been aware that he was a member of the non-indicted 4 in the prison,” and “I have responded to the question “I have been admitted to the non-indicted 4 in Incheon 200, the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 5’s testimony that the non-indicted 4 was a witness recommended in the future of the Defendant (the non-indicted 3).”

However, in fact, around May 2015, Nonindicted 3 joined the “○○○○mion” with the introduction of the Defendant, and the Defendant was well aware of the aforementioned facts.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false statement contrary to his memory and raised perjury.

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Copy of the protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 3 by prosecution

1. Recording notes (Nonindicted 4);

1. Judgment of the Incheon District Court No. 14 Criminal Division, the Seoul High Court's trial records, the Seoul High Court's examination records (part of the second trial records), the Incheon District Court's 12 Criminal Division, and the Seoul High Court's 2 Criminal Division

1. Previous convictions: Investigative inquiries into crimes and investigation records, investigation reports, one copy of the summary of the case agreement assistance session, and three copies of the judgment;

[The actual accounts of the criminal defendant and his defense counsel asserted that, around 2013, the defendant did not give testimony contrary to his memory and did not have the intention of perjury since he was aware that Non-Indicted 3 was a member of ○○○○○○○○m around that time, on the grounds that Non-Indicted 3 was engaged in personnel affairs of the defendant while Non-Indicted 4 was working in the Incheon detention house.

However, considering the following circumstances which can be recognized based on the evidence adopted and investigated by this Court, the defendant can be recognized as having taken an oath as a witness and made a statement contrary to his memory.

① In all previous criminal cases, both the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 argued that their entrance time in an investigative agency was the Defendant’s 2014 and Nonindicted 3 was the Defendant’s 2015 year, and that both Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 4 were admitted to the detention house through Nonindicted 124 and Nonindicted 4 in early 2013, and Nonindicted 3 became the Defendant through Nonindicted 4 around 2013.

The Defendant and Nonindicted 3’s above assertion did not have been accepted in the court. The primary basis of the determination is ① there is a concrete and objective aspect that the Defendant and Nonindicted 3’s statement in the investigation agency is consistent with the specific and objective verification, and both the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 are motiveed to make a false statement as to the entrance time. ② The Defendant stated that ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○671, 76.

② Examining the contents of the Defendant’s testimony based on the progress of each criminal case as above and the background of the Defendant’s testimony, Nonindicted 4, when the Defendant was in the Incheon detention house in 2013, stated that Nonindicted 3’s ○○○○○○○○○○○ Group was aware that the time of joining Nonindicted 3’s ○○○○○○ Branch was 2013.

공소외 4의 주2) 진술 및 인천구치소 수용기록과 사실조회 회신서의 기재에 의하면, 공소외 4는 2013. 7. 3.부터 2013. 7. 11.까지 공소외 3과 같은 거실에 수감되어 있었던 사실, 당시 공소외 3은 구치소 내에서 공소외 4를 ‘형님’이라고 부르며 공소외 4에게 깍듯이 인사를 하는 등으로 처세하였고, 공소외 4는 공소외 3을 ‘막둥이’라고 부르면서 피고인을 비롯한 자신이 알고 지내던 수용자들에게 ‘공소외 3이 똘망똘망한 아이다, 잘 챙겨주라’는 취지의 말을 하였던 사실은 인정할 수 있다.

However, the non-indicted 4 stated that he did not directly encourage the non-indicted 3 to join the ○○○○○○m, beyond his speech and behavior as mentioned above. Even if Non-indicted 4's trial was conducted at the time of and after the release, there are no special circumstances showing the credibility of Non-indicted 4's statement that he had been able to no longer have been able to live in the organization at the time when he was able to do so. In light of the attitude of his statement, the circumstances leading up to his statement, and the contents of his statement, it is difficult for the witness non-indicted 11 to dismiss the credibility of the above statement made by Non-indicted 4.

Meanwhile, in light of the various statements and objective evidence adopted in each of the above criminal trials, the Defendant appears to have been in possession of Ma○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ KRW 6). Moreover, the Defendant’s testimony appears to have been distorted to the effect of Nonindicted 3’s testimony.

③ Around October 10, 2014, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserts to the effect that there was a fact that the Defendant gave up Nonindicted 3 as an employee of the ○○○○○○○○○○ branch, such as having an interview with Nonindicted 3 and having an amount kept in custody. However, the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 had been already known prior to the example, and the above date appears to have been at the time of the Defendant’s moving to the ○○○○○○ branch. However, there is no possibility that the Defendant recommended Nonindicted 3 to live together in the ○○○ branch after being released from the office, and it is difficult to promptly ratification the status of Nonindicted 3 as an employee of the ○○○○○○ branch, even if there is such circumstance.

Therefore, we cannot accept the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 152(1) of the Criminal Act, Selection of Imprisonment

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the first sentence of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act

Since the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Code is concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria are not applied.

It is difficult to consistently deny errors and to find the attitude of reflectability.However, the completion period was too excessive). It has interfered with and confused with the discovery of substantial truth by the judicial authorities. It is sentenced in consideration of the above circumstances.

In determining a specific term of punishment, the result of the trial of the criminal case that the defendant testified, the equity in the case that the defendant was tried at the same time with the final and conclusive judgment recorded in the judgment, and the defendant was sentenced to eight months of imprisonment on December 10, 2018 (this Court Decision 2018Da4303). The equity in the case that the defendant was tried together with the above case shall also be considered.

The punishment shall be determined as per the order, taking into consideration the above circumstances and all other conditions of sentencing, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct, family relationship and property status.

Judges Cho Jong-ho

1) On March 16, 2015, Nonindicted 3 terminated the enforcement of its sentence in the Western District of the Red Prison.

2) In relation to Nonindicted 4’s prosecutor’s statement (duplicate) as to Nonindicted 4 Nonindicted 4’s evidence No. 4, Nonindicted 4 appeared and testified as a witness at this court’s 2017 order 9032 case (criminal 10 order). The prosecutor submitted a transcript containing the above testimony as evidence of this case, but withdrawn the above protocol of statement (duplicate) as evidence.