Where several persons in dispute with a victim by jointly doing so, and some of them assault the victim, the establishment of the relationship of accomplice in the assault shall be limited.

For the purpose of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, when two or more persons jointly commit a crime, the requirement that there is an accomplice relation with the crime. It refers to the case where several persons recognize the crimes committed by different persons at the same time and commit the crime to the victim by using them at the same place. As such, even if several persons jointly consult and consult with the victim, and even if several persons jointly committed the violence to the victim, even if they were to commit the violence to the victim, they cannot recognize the accomplice relation with the violence.

Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 163 others (Law No.186,894 delivered on January 26, 1982) (Law No.1982,279) (Gong1982,279), 85Do119 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986,894)

A and 2 others

Defendants

Jeonju District Court Decision 89No732 delivered on July 25, 1990

Each of the appeals filed by Defendant A and B is dismissed.

Of the judgment below, the part concerning Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant C is innocent.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are also examined.

For the purpose of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the term "if two or more persons jointly commit a crime" means a case where several persons jointly commit a crime with regard to the same crime at the same time and with the recognition of another person's crime at the same place, and commit the crime to the victim by using the same opportunity (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do163, Mar. 10, 1970; Supreme Court Decision 81Do1934, Jan. 26, 1982; 83Do3020, May 22, 1985; 83Do3020, May 22, 1985; 83Do3020, among several persons who jointly committed a crime to the victim, it is evident that there is no co-offender in such crime against the victim, even if they encourage the above act of violence, or actively bold such violence without doing so.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendants, in accordance with the macroficial evidence around February 21, 1989, ordered the defendant to collect aggregate at the victim's house around February 21, 1989, to pay compensation for the failure to restore the original state after promising the victim to do so at the defendant's argument that he did not pay it to the above D, and the defendants also resist the above D as a bath theory. In the process, the defendant A, in his hand, led the victim's chest by attaching the lower part below on the victim's hand, and the same B jointly assaultsd the victim's chest up two times by hand.

According to the records, the court below's judgment against the above Defendants is justified and there is no error of law as to the determination of evidence, such as the theory of the lawsuit in the process of the examination of evidence, since the original inquiry conducted by Defendant A and B is sufficiently recognizable.

However, as to the part against Defendant C, Defendant C denies the crime from the police investigation to the court of the court below, and argued that it was only the victim’s house, as the other Defendants, even though she committed a crime. According to the victim’s testimony by the court of first instance employed by the court below, Defendant C stated that Defendant C only her speech while she takes a bath, and even based on the victim’s statement, Defendant C can take into account the circumstances where she was involved in the act of assault, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts that the above Defendant took part in the act of assault. Thus, in light of such evidence relations, it is evident that Defendant C cannot be held liable for the crime of assault against the Defendants in relation to the act of assault.

Ultimately, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant C guilty shall be reversed and shall not be maintained as there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, all appeals by Defendant A and B are dismissed, and the part against Defendant C in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed. Since it is deemed sufficient to render judgment by the party members based on the evidence examined by the court below and the first instance court, this part is decided not to be guilty, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice) Lee Jong-won (Presiding Justice)