Ministry of Gender Equality of Joint Criminals in Joint Criminals

In the case of joint larceny stipulated in the latter part of Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act, there should be a sharing of the act of execution having a time and place cooperative relationship as an objective requirement in addition to a public offering. If there is no sharing of the act of execution, the defendant cannot be inquired of the defendant as a joint principal offender of joint larceny. However, even if he conspireds to commit a crime in a joint principal offender and does not directly participate in the act of execution, he cannot be exempted from the criminal liability due to the act of another accomplice. Therefore, the defendant cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a joint principal offender of general larceny or a joint th

Articles 30 and 331(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Do2720 Decided July 27, 1976 (Article 331(11) of the Criminal Act, Article 331(11) of the Criminal Act, Article 331(11) 441, Article 11313, Article 24B-78, No. 544,

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Seoul District Court (86 High Court Decision 1659)

Each judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by imprisonment for a term of two years, and by imprisonment for a term of three years, respectively.

Out of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 105 days shall be included in the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment, and 100 days for the defendants 3 shall be included in the respective punishment against the defendants

The forged part of each resident registration certificate (certificate No. 3) seized shall be discarded.

One copy of the above resident registration certificate (No. 3) seized shall be returned to the victim non-indicted 1, cash 10,000 won, 100,000 won cashier's checks, 10,000 won cashier's checks, 50 won 3,100 won f. 10,50 won f. 3,100 won f. 3,50 won f. 43 (No. 4, 100 won f. f. 10), 3 Kamerra (No. 16,18, 22) to the victim, respectively.

Defendant 1’s summary of the grounds for appeal No. 1 in the facts charged of this case is not only KRW 38,080, not KRW 38,080, but also KRW 570,00 among the damaged goods in the case of No. 2. D, and KRW 570,00 among the damaged goods was possessed by the same defendant from the original date, but also the court below found Defendant guilty as the above facts charged. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, such as the first point of the grounds for appeal by Nonindicted 2, who was a public defender, and his private defense counsel, was not within the territorial police station, which was the place where the crime was committed. In addition, in the case of No. 1, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to credibility of the defendant’s joint defense counsel or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant’s grounds for appeal No. 2, which affected the conclusion of the judgment without any specific grounds for appeal No. 31 in the above.

Therefore, examining the above argument of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles in light of the records, the facts recorded in the above facts charged by the defendant 1 and 2 can be sufficiently recognized, and even after examining the records, there is no error of law as pointed out in the above facts-finding process of the court below. However, in the case of defendant 2's crime No. 1, at the original time, he conspired with the defendant 1 and the co-defendants of the court below to put up money at retail at the Yeongdeungpo Kanpo Station, and around that time, the defendant 2 was waiting at the above square, and the defendant 1 and 3 were waiting at the above Kanpo Station, and the defendant 1 and the above co-defendants of the court below did not have any error of law as to the above crime of larceny as stated in the judgment of the court below, since the defendant 2 did not take part in the defendant 7's act of larceny, such as taking the victim's hand-on from next to the above defendant 1, the court below's decision that there is no other subjective relation between the defendant 2 and the defendant 32's joint larceny.

Next, considering the following circumstances as to the assertion of unfair sentencing by Defendants 1 and 3 and their public defenders, the above Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record, motive, means, results, etc. of the instant crime and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime was committed, the sentencing of each court below that sentenced the same Defendants is too unreasonable, and thus, it is reasonable to discuss the appeals by the Defendants and their defense counsel.

Therefore, a party member is reversed the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

With the exception of deletion of the "Joint" of the facts constituting a crime No. 1. A only in the case of Defendant 2 among the facts constituting the crime of the Defendants acknowledged as a party member and the summary of the evidence thereof, it is identical as stated in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court below. Thus, it is cited as it is in accordance with

Since the defendants' holding No. 1. (A), No. 1, B, 3-1 of the above ruling; No. 3-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 5 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 4-1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; No. 30 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; and No. 2 of the Defendants

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Suspension-type (Presiding Judge) Lee Jong-soo