[1] Requirements for establishing a joint principal offender

[2] The requirements to not be held liable as a co-principal by a person who participated in the public contest, leading the public contest, departing from the public contest relationship

[3] The case holding that in a case where the defendant, who led other 3 competitors and robbery conspiracys, led the crime of robbery bodily injury by failing to meet any longer, the defendant cannot be deemed to have deserted from the conspiracy relationship

[1] Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that two or more persons jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a joint principal offender, a subjective element is the intent and objective requirement of joint processing, and requires the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control based on a joint doctor. The intention of joint processing is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and to accept it without restraint. The purpose of joint processing is to shift one’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act with another’s intention by using one’s own act.

[2] In the case of a co-principal, when one of the competitors has left from the public contest relationship before the others reach the action, he shall not be held liable as a co-principal with respect to the following acts of the other competitors. However, in the public contest relationship, it is necessary to resolve the functional control over the behavior performed by the competitor by the public contest. As such, when the recruiter participated in the public contest leading and has an impact on the execution of other competitors, he shall not be deemed to have deserted from the public contest relationship unless he has removed the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to stop the crime, etc.

[3] 다른 3명의 공모자들과 강도 모의를 하면서 삽을 들고 사람을 때리는 시늉을 하는 등 그 모의를 주도한 피고인이 함께 범행 대상을 물색하다가 다른 공모자들이 강도의 대상을 지목하고 뒤쫓아 가자 단지 “어?”라고만 하고 비대한 체격 때문에 뒤따라가지 못한 채 범행현장에서 200m 정도 떨어진 곳에 앉아 있었으나 위 공모자들이 피해자를 쫓아가 강도상해의 범행을 한 사안에서, 피고인에게 공동가공의 의사와 공동의사에 기한 기능적 행위지배를 통한 범죄의 실행사실이 인정되므로 강도상해죄의 공모관계에 있고, 다른 공모자가 강도상해죄의 실행에 착수하기까지 범행을 만류하는 등으로 그 공모관계에서 이탈하였다고 볼 수 없으므로 강도상해죄의 공동정범으로서의 죄책을 진다고 한 사례.

[1] Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [3] Articles 30 and 337 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792 Decided November 9, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 119), Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995 Decided June 24, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1255) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do206 Decided March 9, 2006 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 71Do2277 Decided April 20, 1972 (No house20-1, 86), Supreme Court Decision 85Do2371, 85Do347 Decided January 21, 1986 (Gong1986, 404), Supreme Court Decision 95Do9595 Decided July 11, 1995 (Gong195595Du296595 Decided July 26, 195)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Noh Jeong-ok

Gwangju High Court Decision 2007No171 Decided January 25, 2008

The appeal is dismissed. 70 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more co-principals jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a co-principal, the subjective requirements are the intent and objective requirements of co-principal, which require the fact of implementation of a crime through functional control based on the co-principal’s intent. The intent of co-processing is insufficient to recognize the crime of another person and to accept it without restraint. The intent of co-processing is one of the co-principal’s own intent to commit a specific criminal act as a co-principal and shift his own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7477, Mar. 28, 2003). In addition, if one of the co-principals withdraws from the conspiracy’s relation before the other co-principal reaches the execution, the co-principal is not liable for the subsequent co-principal’s act with respect to the other co-principal’s act, but it is not necessary for the co-principal to actively take part in the conspiracy’s functional relation with removal of the influence of the conspiracy’s.

원심이 채용한 증거와 기록에 의하면, 피고인은 21세로서 이 사건 강도상해의 범행 전날 밤 11시경에 14세 또는 15세의 원심공동피고인 1, 2, 3과 강도 모의를 하였는데 이때 피고인이 삽을 들고 사람을 때리는 시늉을 하는 등 주도적으로 그 모의를 한 사실, 피고인은 위 원심공동피고인 1 등과 이 사건 당일 새벽 1시 30분경 특수절도의 범행을 한 후 함께 일대를 배회하면서 새벽 4시 30분경 이 사건 강도상해 범행을 하기까지 강도 대상을 물색한 사실, 위 원심공동피고인 1, 2가 피해자를 발견하고 쫓아 가자 피고인은 “어?”라고만 하고 위 원심공동피고인 3에게 따라가라고 한 후 자신은 비대한 체격 때문에 위 원심공동피고인 1, 2를 뒤따라가지 못하고 범행현장에서 200m 정도 떨어진 곳에 앉아 있었던 사실, 결국 위 원심공동피고인 1, 2는 피해자를 쫓아가 폭행하여 항거불능케 한 다음 피해자의 뒷주머니에서 지갑을 강취하고 피해자에게 약 7주간의 치료를 요하는 우측 무릎뼈골절 등의 상해를 입히는 이 사건 강도상해의 범행을 한 사실을 알 수 있는바, 그렇다면 피고인은 위 원심공동피고인 1 등과 공동가공의 의사와 공동의사에 기한 기능적 행위지배를 통한 범죄의 실행사실이 인정되므로 판시 강도상해죄의 공모관계에 있다고 할 것이고, 이와 같이 공모관계에 있는 위 원심공동피고인 1, 2가 피해자를 강도의 대상으로 지목하고 뒤쫓아 갈 때 피고인이 단지 “어?”라고 반응하였을 뿐이라면 위 원심공동피고인 1, 2가 강도상해죄의 실행에 착수하기까지 범행을 만류하는 등으로 그 공모관계에서 이탈하였다고 볼 수도 없으므로, 피고인은 판시 강도상해죄의 공동정범으로서의 죄책을 면할 수 없다.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, misapprehension of the legal principles as to the requirements for establishment of a joint principal offender, or renunciation of a competitive relationship.

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)