Subjective requirements for establishment of joint principal in the death of injury

As a result, the co-principal of death resulting from bodily harm is established when he/she wishes to jointly commit violence or other bodily harm, and there is no need to jointly take the result.

Articles 15(2), 30, and 259 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2193 decided Jan. 17, 1978 (Gong1978, 10620) 90Do765 decided Jun. 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1636) decided Oct. 11, 1991 (Gong191, 2762)

A and one other

Defendants

Attorney B and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 93No675 delivered on May 25, 1993

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence after 60 days.

1. Defendant A and state appointed defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, the court below's reasoning that recognized the facts of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the defendant A or maintained them is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and the court below's assistance in finding that the defendant was guilty of murder shall not be deemed to be unlawful.

There is no reason to discuss the issues of the exclusive authority of the fact-finding court.

On the second ground for appeal

Examining the facts of the first instance court or the facts of the offense and the conditions of sentencing recognized by the lower court through the record, even considering the point of the theory of the lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that there is a significant reason to recognize that the sentence of the lower court against the same accused is extremely unreasonable.

There is no reason for this issue.

2. We examine Defendant C’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal.

On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below with respect to Defendant C is also acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and it is also justified in the court below's decision that the defendant was unable to expect the result of the victim's death at all.

The main issue is that the court below's fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority, is not erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the court below did not recognize it.

On the second ground for appeal

As a result, the co-principal of the injury resulting from an aggravated aggravated crime is established if he/she wishes to jointly commit violence or any other act of bodily infringement, and the intention to jointly take the result is not necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 77Do2193, Jan. 17, 1978). Accordingly, as determined by the court below, if the defendant C jointly with the defendant A and the co-defendant D of the court below, or in the opportunity to commit violence against the victim, thereby the defendant A murdered the victim, he/she shall be deemed to have been aware of the injury or the act of assault even if he/she failed to do so, so long as the result of the murder or the act of assault could not be predicted, he/she shall not be exempted from the liability for the crime of bodily injury.

In the same purport, the court below's action that decided Defendant C as the crime of bodily injury is proper, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the result of aggravated punishment, such as theory of action.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

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

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)