Requirements for establishing joint crimes

In order to establish a joint crime, there is a public contest as a subjective requirement and a sharing of action as an objective requirement, and in particular, it is required that there is a cooperative relationship at a time and place in the action.

Article 5-7 of the Specific Punishment Act

Supreme Court Decision 88Do1557 decided Nov. 22, 1988 (Gong1989,40) 88Do837 decided Mar. 14, 1989 (Gong1989,638) 92Do917 decided Jul. 28, 1992 (Gong192,2696)

Defendant

Attorney Dog-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 94No172 delivered on May 11, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the facts established by the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the defendant and the co-defendant 1 and 2 of the court below were to drink together with the victims at the main points of the judgment of the court below and the Han River water site, and they were to get the victims to gather, and all the co-defendants of the court below were to see the direction of the victims by changing the direction toward the victim's house through driving the above vehicle, and then they conspired to rape according to the proposal of the co-defendants of the court below. First of all, the co-defendants of the court below made the victims to talk with the victim 2, and let the victim 1 and 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance take out from the vehicle and talk with the victim in the vicinity of the court of first instance, and they were to waive it, and they were to have sexual intercourse with the victim 2, who tried to make a threat within the remaining victim 1 by force.

In order for a joint crime to be established, a public contest as a subjective requirement and a sharing of action as an objective requirement must be carried out, and in particular, it is required that there is a cooperative relationship between time and place (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do917, Jul. 28, 1992).

If the facts are as above, it is difficult to view that there was a cooperative relationship between the defendant and the co-defendants in the court below's co-defendants who shared the conduct of rape at the scene of the crime, and thus, the defendant cannot be divided into a joint crime of special rape. Therefore, the decision of the court below to this purport is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for establishing a joint crime.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)