The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the organization of Defendant A’s criminal organization

A. In light of the fact that a group of violence is different from a legitimate group, and it seems that the continuous association as an organization is somewhat unstable due to the characteristics of the group, and even if the leading system seems not to be clear inside and outside of the country, the relationship between the members was assembled in accordance with the regulations of their special oil and the power as an organization or group has been exercised, it can be seen that the "organization for criminal purposes" under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established as a group organized by many specific persons under the common purpose of committing crimes stipulated in the above Act, and has a minimum common system leading the group or maintaining internal order. The crime group can be established and continued in a variety of forms, and as long as it does not require a prison sentence, it does not require a clear name or demotion of the organization with respect to its composition or joining, and there is no special procedure such as the formation of the organization or joining.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1829, Oct. 10, 1997; 2009Do9484, Jan. 28, 2010). However, given that organization of a criminal organization refers to the formation and establishment of a new criminal organization by means of an existing criminal organization, if an existing criminal organization forms a new criminal organization by means of an existing criminal organization, and its organization is reconstructed, the organization is separated from the existing criminal organization and constitutes a separate criminal organization. If the current criminal organization forms a separate criminal organization, it can be recognized as a separate organization that is not identical with the existing criminal organization by completely changing its organization.