Whether the organization of an organization under Article 4 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 1990) is a continuous crime (negative)

The organization of an organization, etc. under Article 4 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 190) shall be established immediately by organizing an organization or group for the purpose of committing a crime prescribed in the same Act and shall not be an immediate crime completed simultaneously.

Article 4 of the former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 1990)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Attorney By Law et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 91No3629 delivered on November 21, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 90 days, the original sentence against Defendant 1 shall be included in the calculation of the first offense, and the original sentence against Defendant 2 shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

1. Determination of the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1 and the attorney-at-law as to each of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 and the attorney-at-law (the grounds for supplementary appeal as stated in the supplemental appellate brief submitted by the attorney-at-law after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief is examined within

If the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, all of the facts constituting the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the death resulting from bodily injury against the above defendant can be recognized. As pointed out in the court below's theory, it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by erroneous determination of facts against the rules of evidence such as the confession of the defendant without any admissibility or credibility or reinforcement evidence. Thus, there is no reason to discuss all.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 2

The crime of organizing an organization, etc. under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 4294 of Dec. 31, 190), is not established immediately by organizing an organization or group for the purpose of a crime prescribed in the same Act and is not so-called immediate crime that is completed at the same time by forming such an organization or group (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do3267 of Dec. 14, 1976). Accordingly, with the opinion of the court below as to the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the above defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000 at the Seoul District Criminal Court on Aug. 16, 1986 and sentenced to a concurrent crime under the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., for which the judgment became final and conclusive and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as argued in the judgment below.

3. Judgment on Defendant 1’s ground of appeal No. 3 and ground of appeal No. 2 that became a public defender

Examining the above defendant's age, character, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, and consequence of each crime, and circumstances surrounding the sentencing indicated in the records, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant or defense counsel, the determination of the above defendant's punishment against the above defendant is appropriate, and the determination of the sentence against the above defendant cannot be deemed to have a significant reason to recognize that the amount of the punishment is extremely unfair, and therefore, the argument cannot be accepted.

4. Determination on the grounds of appeal by Defendant 4 and the defense counsel's bar and defense counsel's attorney-at-law.

A. As to the crime of injury or death:

If the evidence of the court of first instance admitted by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can sufficiently recognize the crime of the above defendant's injury resulting in death, and it cannot be viewed that the court below erred by admitting evidence contrary to the common sense of free evaluation of evidence as pointed out in the court below's theory.

The court below, around June 9, 1989, ordered the above defendant 1 to leave the phone with the defendant 1 and to kill the victim. The above defendant instigated the defendant 1 to inflict an injury on the part of the non-indicted 1 by referring to "I am satise and die. I am satise and we am am satch", and it is recognized that the non-indicted 1 was satisfing the victim's death with his own name and satisfing the defendant 2 et al., and the above teacher's above intent of the defendant's above is an effective withdrawal of retaliation against the satfs which belong to the non-indicted 1, and it is hard to find that the defendant 2 was the victim's act of attack and the relation between the defendant 1 and the non-indicted 2's act of attack regardless of the above defendant's act of attack. Thus, it is hard to view that the defendant 2's act of attack and the defendant 1's act of attack are the above.

In addition, according to the above evidence, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant 2 was aware that Defendant 1 could have caused the result of the injury to the victim in aiding and abetting Defendant 1 to take retaliation as above, and it was possible to anticipate it as Defendant 2, the teacher, who was the victim of organized violence as in this case, that the result of the injury may result in the death of the victim. Thus, it cannot be said that the above Defendant had no intention to commit the crime of bodily injury as in the theory of the lawsuit, and as pointed out in the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be said that Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 3, etc., who had committed the crime of bodily injury prior to the above Defendant's act of aiding and abetting, had already been resolved to commit the crime, but the court below did not punish Defendant 1 as the co-principal of the crime of bodily injury in this case, but did not punish Defendant 1 as the crime of bodily injury in this case. Thus, Defendant 2's act of aiding and abetting cannot be viewed as a so-called indirect teacher or re-offender like the lawsuit.

In conclusion, we cannot accept all the above facts on the premise that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on causation or the elements of a crime of aiding and abetting in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below are criticized or inconsistent with the facts recognized by the

B. As to the crime of aiding an offender:

If the evidence adopted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is examined by comparing it with the records, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant 2 committed the crime of this case by providing a sum of KRW 335,00,000, as decided by the court below for the purpose of avoiding the arrest of the behavioral members related to the crime of the bodily injury of this case with Co-Defendant 1, and it cannot be seen that Defendant 2 was subject to intimidation from Defendant 1 and provided the above flight funds, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there was no illegality of punishing the act of coercion like the theory of lawsuit in the court below. There is no reason to support the argument.

5. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal is made, Defendant 1 shall be sentenced to the original sentence of the crime No. 1 at the time of the original adjudication, Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to the original sentence of the lower judgment, and each of the appeals shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)