Punishment of a competitor who did not share the action;

"When two or more persons jointly commit a crime" in Article 30 of the Criminal Code does not necessarily mean that the crime is committed in whole or in part, which constitutes the elements of a crime, if there are several persons who jointly commit a crime and who jointly commit a crime in order to gather the commission of the crime and to implement the common will, both of them shall be the principal offender.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1942 Delivered on October 11, 1983

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney Park Ho-won, Kim Young-chul, and Kim Hong

Seoul High Court Decision 84No244 delivered on May 10, 1984

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in each principal sentence for 60 days, respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

(1) As to Defendant 1 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal, Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal, and Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

According to the records, the defendants were notified that they have the right to refuse to make statements from the prosecutor whenever they are examined. After the examination is completed, the prosecutor allowed the interpreter to read the contents of the interrogation report. After the examination, the prosecutor stated that there is no clerical error or change in the contents of the protocol, and then sign the statement without signing the statement. The contents of the protocol include the part of the statement stating that they divided their vindications and crimes, and they interfere with the disposition of the suspect's suspect's statement, and the contents of the statement are natural and no contradiction can be found. These facts can be found to be extremely contradictory to that of the defendants' above statement. The reasons why the defendants asserted and invoked the above statement are sufficient as material to deny the doubt that it is not arbitrarily made. After the examination, the defendants continued to make a false confession as a customs officer's adviser, etc., and there is no reason to suspect the credibility or credibility of the examination report in the process of examination of suspect's interrogation of suspect, and there is no illegality in the examination or examination of evidence.

(2) As to Defendant 2’s ground of appeal No. 2

"When two or more persons jointly commit a crime" in Article 30 of the Criminal Act does not necessarily mean only the case where they jointly commit a crime in whole or in part, which constitutes the constituent elements of a crime, and even if several persons jointly commit a crime in order to gather the commission of a crime and to implement the common will, they shall be the principal offender. According to the facts established by the court below in this case, the defendant 2 conspired to import gold, etc. in the manner as stated in its reasoning with defendants 1, 1, 2, and 3 as well as the above defendant 1, 47, and 50, the pertinent customs duties and defense taxes on the 50 hand hand hand and 50, which correspond to the constituent elements of a crime, were attempted to be evaded by deception or other unlawful methods, and thus, even if there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above act of disposal by the accomplice, the defendant 2 shall not be held liable for the above act of disposal as a joint principal and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above act of disposal.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)