A. Applicable law to the act of bullying

(b) Punishment of a competitor who does not share the conduct;

C. Recognizing the establishment of the co-principal, whether the decision was not stated in Article 30 of the Criminal Code (affirmative)

(a)Article 180 of the Customs Act shall apply so long as an indictment for evading customs duties is filed, since Article 35, Article 27, and Article 4 subparagraph 6 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act provides for the punishment of exportation and importation of precious metals, but the Customs Act shall apply to the case of evading customs duties;

B. Joint principal offender refers to a joint principal offender who does not necessarily need to take part in the act of committing a crime and at least has the intent to co-processing a crime among all the co-offenders, namely, where there is contact with one another and some of them have been committed, the crime is ultimately committed as a joint principal offender. A person who does not directly share the act of committing a crime shall not be held liable as a joint principal offender with regard to the whole crime.

C. Even if the lower court’s determination that the Defendant’s so-called as a co-principal is based on the fact that the Defendant did not specify the statement of application of Article 30 of the Criminal Act, it cannot be said that the application thereof is unlawful.

(a) Articles 4, 27, and 35 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act, Articles 180 and 181 of the Customs Act, Article 6 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Act; Article 323 of the Criminal Procedure Act;

B. Supreme Court Decision 82Do3248 delivered on March 8, 1983

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Tae-won

Gwangju District Court Decision 82No535 delivered on June 23, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

Each ground of appeal is examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 as to the grounds of appeal by the first instance court as cited by the court below, examining and comparing the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below with records, the court below’s decision that recognized each crime against the Defendant can be justified, and it cannot be seen that there was an error of misconception of facts and incomplete deliberation due to violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, and at the time of the crime of this case, the Act on Temporary Measures concerning Gold (No. 2471 of February 3, 1973) was repealed (Article 35, Article 27, and Article 4 subparag. 6 of the Foreign Exchange Control Act). However, this case is not a non-licensed export or import crime, but a charge of evading customs duties (Article 180 of the Customs Act). Thus, the court below’s decision of dismissal against customs duty cannot be justified, and there is no ground for appeal that the sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for less than 10 years cannot be justified.

2. On the third ground for appeal by defense counsel

The so-called joint principal offender under Article 30 of the Criminal Act refers to a case where all accomplices are not necessarily required to participate in the act of crime, and there is no intention to jointly process crimes among all the co-offenders, i.e., where all the co-offenders are in contact with each other, and where some of them are in the commission of crime, they shall eventually commit the crime as a joint principal offender, and a person who does not directly participate in the act of crime as a joint principal offender shall not be held liable for all the crimes. At the time of the original judgment, the defendant shall not be held liable as a joint principal offender with regard to the whole crime. According to the original judgment, the defendant shall not be held liable as a joint principal offender with the non-indicted et al., prepare and invest the purchase fund, jointly purchase the smuggling imported goods, bring them into Korea, and avoid customs duties in a deceptive way, and the court below's decision that applied the same Article to the above Damond and gold ing. However, the court below's determination that the defendant's application of Article 30 of the Criminal Act was unlawful.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young