Requirements for the establishment of a public contest for joint principal

In the case of the conspiracy, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is a combination of two or more persons to jointly process the crime and realize the crime. Even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the will is achieved in order or impliedly, it should be established if there was a combination between several persons, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, it should be held liable as a co-principal for the other co-principal's act.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 1114 decided Sep. 13, 198 (Gong1988, 1294) (Gong1294) 92Do2432 decided Nov. 24, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 307) 93Do1435 decided Jul. 27, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2479)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Jae-hwan

Seoul High Court Decision 94No630 delivered on June 8, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. 30 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A public conspiracy does not require any legal form of punishment, and only two or more persons agree to commit a crime by jointly processing and realizing a crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, a public conspiracy relationship is established if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, even though there was no process of the whole conspiracy. As long as such public conspiracy was made, even those who did not directly participate in the act of the execution are subject to criminal liability as a co-principal for the act of the other co-offenders (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do114 delivered on September 13, 198).

Examining each evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant as a co-principal for the crime of this case where the non-indicted 1, etc. shared with the defendant as a co-principal for the crime of this case, is just and there is no error in finding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or in finding the judgment of the criminal intent about the co-principal for the crime of this case as a co-principal for which the non-indicted 2, 3, 4, and 5, etc., the information company in the judgment, as if the information company site in the judgment could be given preferential treatment through the high power floor, and caused the non-indicted 5 to enter into a non-indicted 5 to enter into a non-indicted 5, who had no legitimate business authority, by deceiving him to enter into a contract by deceiving him, and to acquire the nominal money, such as the price for the non-indicted 1, etc., from the above court below. The grounds for appeal cannot be accepted. The grounds for appeal are dismissed.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)