A. Whether a crime of violence is committed “in common” under Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in a case where it is acknowledged that a person was involved in or was at the place of crime although he/she was found to have committed the crime (negative)

B. Whether the court should deliberate and decide on the facts charged in violation of Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act in cases where a prosecution was instituted in violation of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, but it is not recognized that at night or at least two joint facts were not recognized, on the ground that “at night or at least two persons jointly commit a crime under Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act” (affirmative)

(c) Specific degree of crime of the obstruction of auction;

A. For the purpose of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the phrase “when two or more persons jointly commit the crimes as referred to in the preceding paragraph” requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship among them, and that there is a case where several persons recognize a different person’s crime in the same opportunity and commit the crime using it at the same place. Thus, the conspiracy with the criminal of assault is recognized, but it does not constitute a case where it is recognized that the crime was involved in the crime or was at the place of the crime.

B. The facts charged are also included in violation of Articles 2(2) and (1), 260(1), and 283(1) of the Criminal Act on the ground that “a person who, at night or at least two persons jointly, commits a crime under Articles 260(1) and 283(1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act”. In this case, if the court recognizes the facts of violence and intimidation as it does not have any concern over causing any substantial disadvantage to the defendant’s defense even if it recognizes the facts of violence and intimidation, the court may deliberate and determine the facts charged in violation of Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act even without the procedure to revise the indictment, and if the court did not make a decision, it erred.

C. The court below did not reveal that there was no illegality of specifying criminal facts or of misunderstanding the legal principles on obstruction of auction on the ground that there was no disclosure by examining and disclosing the names of those other than the defendants or those who want to participate in the auction, among those who interfere with the auction, when the non-indicted was sealed out of the auction court to allow them to participate in the auction independently, and the court below did not reveal that those who want to participate in the auction, other than the defendants, or those who want to participate in the auction, among those who interfere with the auction.

A. Article 2(2)(a) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act; Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 254 and 298(c) of the Criminal Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 85Do119 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986,894). Supreme Court Decision 90Do401 delivered on April 24, 1990 (Gong190,1157)

A and 2 others

Prosecutor (Defendant 1, 2) and the Defendants

Attorney B (Defendant 3)

Gwangju District Court Decision 90No368 delivered on July 26, 1990

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant A and the same defendant C shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

Defendant D’s appeal is dismissed.

With respect to Defendant D, 70 days of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

1. The grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor (the innocent part against the defendant A and C) shall be examined;

With respect to No. 1:

"When two or more persons jointly commit the crimes specified in the preceding paragraph" in Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act means that there is a so-called accomplice relationship among them, and there is a requirement that several persons recognize the crimes of another person in the same opportunity and use them to commit the crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do119, Jun. 10, 1986).

Therefore, the court below's determination that the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Article 2 (2) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) is a case where there is no proof of a crime concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on the ground that it is recognized that there was a conspiracy with Defendant A and C, but it is not recognized that it participated in each crime jointly with Defendant D, or that it was at the place of the crime, based on such view. It is

With respect to the second ground:

"A person who jointly commits a crime under Articles 260 (1) and 283 (1) (Intimidation) of the Criminal Act with at night or at least two persons shall be deemed to be included in the facts charged of violence under Articles 2 (2) and (1), 260 (1), and 283 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, among the facts charged of violence under Articles 260 (1) and 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the facts charged of intimidation under Article 283 (1) of the Criminal Act, which have been publicly announced in violation of Article 260 (1) and (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act. In this case, if the court recognizes the facts of violence and intimidation, even if at night or at least two joint facts are not recognized, the court may examine and determine the facts charged of violation of Articles 260 (1) and 383 (1) of the Criminal Act without any amendment procedure, and if the court did not judge the facts charged of violence and intimidation requested, it shall be deemed a party member.

As to the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act against Defendant A and C, the public prosecutor shall request the above defendants D to suppress other applicants for auction in the course of the auction of this case with the participation of the other applicants for auction and the obstruction and resistance of occupants by violence in the process of the auction of this case, and thereby, the above defendants conspired with the above defendants with the above defendants, and accordingly, the above defendants committed violence or intimidation jointly with the names of the victims of violence and the names of the above defendants, thereby instituting a public prosecution under Article 2(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 260(1) and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act. According to the court below's judgment, the court below found the above facts as to the above facts charged against Defendant A and C, but it is not recognized that the above defendants conspired with the above defendants, but jointly with them (i.e., two or more persons jointly committed violence or intimidation under Article 260(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act.

2. The grounds for appeal by Defendant A shall be examined.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as to the facts obstructing the auction of the defendant A, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the limit of the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law against the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to obstruction of auction in the judgment of the court below where the defendants conspired to open the 2,3 persons outside of the court of auction to participate in the auction independently, and where the non-indicted E did not explicitly indicate that those other than the defendants or those who want to participate in the auction among those who interfere with the auction, and if the court below did not want to participate in the auction, the above non-indicted 1 did not specifically state who want to participate in the auction, and if the above-indicted 2, 3 persons who want to participate in the auction independently from the court of auction.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

3. Defendant C’s grounds of appeal are examined.

The fact-finding by the court below on the charge of obstruction of auction against Defendant C is also acceptable, and if so, the legal purpose of the court below is justified.

The court below's finding guilty by recognizing the conspiracy with Defendant C's above-mentioned defendants as to obstruction of auction. It cannot be said that there is a limit to the rules of evidence, and the court below did not apply the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act to the same defendant. Therefore, the issue is groundless.

4. Defendant D and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below with respect to defendant D shall be justified and there is no error of law in the rules of evidence or the fact-finding without any evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Recognizing the facts of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury, Destruction of Property, Damage to Property, and Facts charged) in the judgment of the court below, it cannot be said that there is an error of law in finding facts in violation of the rules of evidence without any evidence, and the confession statement at the time of interrogation of the fourth suspect in the prosecutor's office, such as the obstruction of auction (Article 1-A) does not seem to be false, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the probative value of confession.

In addition, it is reasonable to find the guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as judged by the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the crime of extortion. All the arguments are groundless.

5. In addition, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and C shall be sentenced to one sentence in a case where the part of the judgment of the court below convicts Defendant A and C as to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and if the part of the judgment of the court below convicts Defendant A and C is found guilty, it shall be reversed in all of these parts (the part of the charge, the part of the charge, and the part of the acquittal). The appeal against Defendant D shall be dismissed, and the part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)