A. The meaning of the criminal organization under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(b) The case holding that it constitutes a crime organization under paragraph (a).

(a) The crime organization provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to an organized body with the system of continuous and minimum ventilation, even though it has been formed by a specific majority for the joint purpose of committing any crime provided for in the same Act;

B. The case holding that, in a case where the members of the group below the second class leader share a mutual role and thoroughly observe the order, thoroughly and thoroughly obeys the order of command to the vessel, and that "after the entry of an outside force in a certain area shall not be disclosed to the outside; hereinafter the outside force shall not enter the outside; hereinafter the entry of an outside force in a certain area) is carried out by violent means of various economic benefits, such as redevelopment apartment unit sales, etc. while strengthening the partnership between the group members due to a dormitory life, etc. regulated under the order of action such as by which entry is restricted, this is a combination equipped with a continuous and organized command system for the purpose of violent crimes, etc., which constitutes an organization under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 91Do2527 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong1992,816) (Gong1992,816) 92Do2432 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 307) 94Do1853 delivered on September 23, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 2907)

Defendant 1 and 22 others

Defendants

Seoul General Law Firm and five others

Seoul High Court Decision 95No162 delivered on May 4, 1994

All appeals are dismissed.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 shall be included in the principal sentence of the above Defendants (with respect to Defendant 3 among the defendants, imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes prescribed in Articles 1, 26, 29, and 33 at the time of the original adjudication; with respect to Defendant 4, Articles 1, 25, and 28-A at the time of the original adjudication; with respect to Defendant 6, the punishment for the crimes prescribed in Articles 1, 5, 11, 15, and 22 at the time of the original adjudication; with respect to Defendant 7, 8, and 10, the punishment for the crimes prescribed in Article 1 at the time of each original adjudication; and with respect to Defendant 9, the punishment for the crimes prescribed in Articles 1, 5, 11, 15, and 22 at the time of the original adjudication;

We examine the Defendants and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the evidence admitted or maintained by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding Defendant 2 (excluding Defendant 13), Defendant 1 as an advisory officer, Defendant 3 as the executive officer at the wharf level, Defendant 4, 5, and 6 as the behavior officer at the behavior level, Defendant 4, and Defendant 6 as the remaining Defendant, etc. as the behavior officer, injury to Defendant 4 and 6’s Kim Young-young, injury to Defendant 13, acceptance of bribe against Defendant 6, acceptance of bribe against Defendant 13, injury to the victim hearing, threat of the victim’s escape, double confinement of the victim, assault against the victim’s knife on the victim’s knife and knife, Defendant 10, assault against the victim’s knife, assault against the victim’s knife, assault against the victim’s knife and knife, Defendant 4’s life and knife of the victim, Defendant 1 and rape’s name and 4.

2. In light of all the circumstances indicated in the records, such as Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the public prosecutor’s preparation, and the type and contents of each protocol of examination of the suspect against co-defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and the career, occupation, and intelligence of the above defendants, each of the above defendants’ statements at the public prosecutor’s office appears to be a voluntary statement, as alleged by the defendants, and there are no circumstances to suspect that the above interrogation protocol has no voluntariness since it has been maintained

According to the records, in the first instance court, Defendant 4, 5, and 6 have consented to the investigation report prepared by the North Korean Prosecutor's Office in the Seoul District Prosecutors' Office and the investigation report prepared by the police officer Kim Jong-sung as evidence. Thus, the above defendants' defense counsel's assertion that each investigation report is inadmissible is without merit.

3. As to the facts charged of murder against the same defendant, the defendant 14 and his defense counsel asserted that the court below erred in reliance on the defendant's testimony, which is the evidence of the prosecutor's office, although it is hard to believe at all, but the above argument is not acceptable. And as the judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, if the defendant 14 died through a knife knife and a knife with the victim's knife and a knife with the defendant's knife so, the above defendant's defense counsel's assertion that the court below erred in the knife of the defendant's knife, which is the evidence of the prosecutor's office, is erroneous, cannot be accepted.

4. Defendant 4’s defense counsel argues that the protocol of statement to the high-ranking country is inadmissible as hearsay evidence, but since the above protocol of statement to the high-ranking country was not admitted as evidence for conviction of facts constituting an offense as set forth in Articles 18 and 20 of the judgment of the court below, this part of the allegation is nothing more than disputing the evidence that the court below did not employ. Meanwhile, the part concerning the statement in the above protocol of the court below was somewhat insufficient, but it seems that the purport of the statement in the above protocol of the court below is a case where the original statement is unable to make a statement, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances. In light of the records, the court below's determination that the part concerning the statement in the above protocol of the court below is admissible as hearsay evidence, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

5. The crime group provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to an organized body with a continuous and minimum command system, even under the common purpose of committing a crime under the same Act. As the judgment of the court of first instance which has been quoted or maintained, Defendant 2 takes charge of the organization operation, financing, employment, and ex post facto management, such as the appointment of counsel at the time of the occurrence of violent events, and Defendant 1 exercises influence on the organization as an advisory officer through Defendant 2. Defendant 3 takes charge of the following acts as an executive officer of the wharf, strengthening the number of members, strengthening the competitive power by violence, etc., Defendant 6 takes charge of the part of securing the right to participate in various construction works, such as securing the right to participate in life of apartments, and Defendant 5 takes charge of the remaining parts of the right to participate in the construction works, such as securing the right to participate in the construction works, with the aim of using the remaining part of the permit to participate in the construction works in the area of offset. Defendant 5 is responsible for the remaining part of the permit to participate in the construction works.

6. According to the records, the judgment of the court below that rejected the defendant's mental and physical disability claim on the ground that it is difficult to view that the above defendant was in a mental and physical state at the time of committing the crime, and there is no other evidence to find that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disorder at the time of committing the crime, in full view of the defendant's usual drinking, the amount of drinking immediately before and after the crime, the interval between the above defendant's drinking, the circumstances after drinking, etc.

7. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion that the court below's punishment against the defendants 3, 6, 7, 10, 11, and 12 is more severe, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case where the court below's punishment of less than 10 years is imposed, and the court below's punishment against the defendants 2, 4, and 14 is too inappropriate. Upon examining the above defendants' arguments, the court below's assertion that the sentencing against the defendants 2, 4, and 14 is too inappropriate, and the above defendants' above facts of the crime and the sentencing conditions stated in the records are examined. The court below's determination that the defendants 2 are 13 years of imprisonment and 3, 8, 16, 18, 19-B, and 20 years of imprisonment and 15 years of imprisonment, 1, 25, and 28-B, and 3 years and 14 years of imprisonment, and the defendant's defense counsel's allegation that the court below's decision is unfair.

8. Therefore, all appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and some of the detention days after the appeal against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are under way after the appeal against the defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are under way (the punishment against the defendants 3 shall be imposed upon the defendants 1, 26, 29, and 33 at the time of the original adjudication; the punishment against the defendants 4 shall be imposed upon the defendants 1, 25, 28 at the time of the original adjudication; the punishment against the crimes under Articles 1, 5, 11, 14, 15, and 22 at the time of the original adjudication; the punishment against the defendants 7, 8, and 9 shall be included in the punishment against the original adjudication). It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)