2012No344(a) The name of the crime of attempted murder: The Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Violation of the rate (injury by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual group, deadly weapon, etc.);

Name of the changed crime: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(Bodily Injury by Organization, etc.) and partly recognized name of the crime:

Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, a deadly weapon, etc.);

Partially Recognized Crime: The Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Ban (Habitual Injury)

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (partly changing an injury);

Punishment of Violences, etc.: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization)

The name of a crime partially recognized, such as habitual injury): The Ministry of Violence, etc.

Violation of the Punishment Act (Habitual Injury)

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (part of part of the violence);

Punishment of Violences, etc.: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (organization)

The name of a crime partially recognized, such as habitual assault: The Ministry of Violence, etc.

Violation of the Punishment Act (Habitual Violence)

(e) A defendant who violates the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

Change to A, B, and C: The Ministry of Violence, etc.

The Defendant A, in violation of the Punishment Act (joint injury by organizations, etc.);

Category B: Punishment of violence, etc.

Violation of the Act (Joint Injury)

(f) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

[Name of change in the name of the defendant C: The Ministry of Violence, etc.

Violation of the Punishment Act (collectively Injury by an organization, etc.)

Punishment of Violence, etc.

Violation of the Act (injury by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

(g) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation against groups, deadly weapons, etc.);

【Revised Name of Crime: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(Intimidation, Intimidation, etc. of Organizations, etc.): Violence.

Act on the Punishment of Acts, etc. (Intimidation against Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.)

(h) Injury (the name of a crime altered to Defendant C: Violence;

Violation of the above Punishment Act (Habitual Injury by organizations, etc.); and

name of a crime recognized against ancient C: Bodily injury

(i) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activities of an organization, etc.);

Some Revocation of Public Prosecution)

(j) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group or chest of an organization, etc.);

As to the Defendant D, C, E, F, G, and H

The name of the recognized crime and the identity of the defendant A and I

Name of crime: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group and chest);

(A) Injury by light)

(k) Fashion;

(l) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual public service by organizations, etc.);

(A)

1.(a)(c)(d)(j)(k)(D);

2.ma.ma. Pl. A

3.Mai. B

4.ma. Biosafaraj. l. C

5.i.j. E

6. J. 0

(j)(l) P

(i) Q. Q.

9. J.R.

10. J. S.

11.i. T.

12.h.h. (i)

13.Il. T.F.

14.h. (j) W;

15. J. X

16.i.m. I

17.Wook kn.k. Y

18. J. 2

19. J.C. G.

20. Ji. T. H.

21.i.k. AA

22.i. AB

23.i)AC

Defendant D, C, W, and Prosecutor (as to the Defendant)

Lee Jong-won (prosecution, public trial), Kim Tae-tae (public trial)

Law Firm DH (for Defendant D and E)

Attorney in charge DI

Attorney J (Defendant A, B, F, I, G, and F)

Attorney AI (for the defendant C)

Attorney DK (Defendant 0, P, W, Y, and AA)

Attorney DL (Defendant Q, R, S, T, V, X, Z, AB, and C)

Daejeon District Court Decision 201Gohap64, 2012 Decided August 22, 2012

11(combined), 2012Gohap19(Consolidated) Judgment

2013, 11.

1. The part of the judgment of the court below that found Defendant D (including the part of the judgment of the court below as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (the organization, etc.) of July 208, 2008), W, I's conviction of Defendant W, and each violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the group, deadly weapons, etc. of an organization, etc.) among the part of the acquittal of Defendant W andY's acquittal of Defendant I, and the part that violated the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the group, deadly weapons, etc. of an organization, etc. of an organization, etc.) of the

2. Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of four years, by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

3.Provided, That with respect to defendants W, I, andY, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive;

4. To issue an order to be put on probation against Defendant W, I, andY.

5. Each appeal filed by Defendant D, C, and W and the Prosecutor’s Defendant D (except the remainder of appeal on the part of innocence as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) dated July 2008), A, B, C, E, P, Q, P, Q, Te, T, V, F, Z, G, H, AB, AB, and all appeals filed by Defendant W, I, and Y against the remainder of the acquittal.

1. Scope of the deliberation of the political party;

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found that the part of Defendant 2’s knife Defendant 2’s finger and cut off Defendant 2’s head in the knife with a deadly weapon on May 15, 2008 regarding “the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) against Defendant Z” was excluded from the facts charged, and found that there was no proof of the crime. As to “the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapon, etc.) against Defendant D’s Z on December 15, 2006,” on the ground that “the part of Defendant 2’s face and body body was injured when taking in large number of times on account of each item, which is a dangerous thing against Defendant D, was not proven.” In so determining, the lower court acquitted Defendant 2 on the ground that there was no proof of the crime.

B. A prosecutor shall file an appeal against Defendant D on the grounds of unfair sentencing, mistake of facts, and misapprehension of legal principles. While disclosing the grounds for appeal, both the part on the reduction of criminal facts and the part on the acquittal of the reasons are not explicitly stated in the statement of grounds for appeal stating the specific grounds for appeal. Therefore, the part on the acquittal of the reasons for the judgment of the court below is exempted from the object of public defense among the parties, since the part on conviction against Defendant Z as of December 15, 2006, “the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) against Defendant Z (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) was handed down in the trial, along with the part on conviction as of December 15, 206.

D. However, the part of the judgment of the court below on the reduction of the above facts charged was found guilty of "the violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) against Defendant Z" (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) in relation to this crime. The prosecutor filed an appeal against this part of the facts charged concerning Defendant I I.Y, who is an accomplice, on the grounds of an explicit mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as seen below.

Thus, the prosecutor shall be deemed to have filed an appeal as to the reduction of the above facts charged with Defendant I, Y and this part of the facts charged. Thus, this part is included in the scope of the trial of the party.

2. Summary of and judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. Part concerning Defendant C’s assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Of the facts charged against Defendant C, ① on September 12, 201, 201, there was no fact that there was a fear of fear by threatening the victim BP with "the dead" or with dangerous goods at the AU shelter point, and ② Defendant BS, A, and AA had no fact at the CE point around January 2010, when the part of the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

(2) Determination

Defendant C admitted this part of the facts charged at the investigative agency, and acknowledged all the facts charged against Defendant C through his defense counsel on the first trial date of the original trial of the lower court. However, Defendant C stated that BN took into account the circumstances where BN had his head at the time of his head and gave a different statement, taking into account the sentencing. From the later date, Defendant C reversed his confession statement from the later date to the trial of the lower court, and is disputing this part of the facts charged.

In full view of the statements made by the investigative agency of the victim BP (which is more specific in the police) and the defendant A (which is investigated by the prosecutor's office on December 2009, the bodily injury case around February 2010, the bodily injury case around February 2010, and the bodily injury case at around June 2010, which correspond to this part of the facts charged, specifically state each other according to the time and place of time and place. As such, it is sufficient to find the defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, taking into account the following facts: (a) the investigative agency of the victim BP (which is deemed to have been trusted in the prosecutor's statement; (b) the victim BN's investigative agency and the court's legal statement of the victim BN, which are consistent with this part of the facts charged.

Defendant C’s statement to the purport that the confession was reversed due to the lack of memory at the time of each of the above cases at the trial room is not reliable in itself, and the witness B and A’s statement appears consistent with this is not evidence to reject the recognition of the above conviction because the above witness B and A’s statement at the trial room is not consistent with the contents of a relatively detailed statement in the prosecution room or because it is difficult for the said witness to believe that they are not consistent with each other in the front and rear, and thus, Defendant C’s above assertion is not acceptable.

Furthermore, as to whether Defendant C’s act of carrying dangerous goods at the point of view of the AU, the meaning of “the carrying of dangerous goods” includes not only the possession of any goods that can be used to inflict harm on human life and body, but also the wide use of such goods under the intent to use them in committing a crime at the scene of the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do2812, Sept. 6, 2002). Such an act can be sufficiently recognized as an act of carrying dangerous goods.

Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

B. Prosecution's misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(1) The part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.) and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group or a deadly weapon by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ( a habitual injury by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective injury by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a habitual threat by an organization, etc.), the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a habitual threat by an organization, etc.), the violation of

(A) The argument

Defendant E, Q, R, R, T, P, U,V, W, D, Z, Z, Y, I, H, G, and C, which began to hold an open group conference in the CR restaurant located in BB on September 205 and formed a group to form organization, and then Defendant E was the second class leader, Defendant E was the head of the P, the head of the P as the head of the behavior group, and D was the head of the behavior group, and the rest of the Defendants were the head of the action group, with a liaison system and a code of conduct prepared, and thereafter, Defendant A, AAA, B, AB, and AC became a criminal organization with knowledge that it is a criminal organization.

The Defendants committed each of the crimes in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in order to force a criminal organization or to maintain and maintain the existence of a criminal organization. Although there is sufficient evidence that conforms to the above facts charged, all of the facts charged are found not guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and by misapprehending the legal principles on the criminal organization, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(B) Determination

1) The part concerning the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activity of an organization, etc.)

A) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant E is the leader of the ‘franchising of the Franchising of its own organizations', and Defendant D is the leader of the wharf of 'franchising', Defendant D is the executive officer of the ‘franchising of the Franchising', and the rest of Defendant D is the behavior leader of the Franchising of 'franchising'. Defendant CJ wave, which was a crime group in the 190s and its opposing force, was assigned to Defendant CJS, for the purpose of using the 'franchising of the Franchising of its own organizations' and 'franchising of its own organizations' and 'franchising of its own organizations' and 'franchising of its own organizations' and 'franchising of its own organizations' to 'franchising of its own organizations' and 'franchising of its own organizations' to 'franchising of its own organizations'.

On September 205, Defendant P, while working in the zone to be granted with Defendant U, has called Defendant V, W, F, X, D, I,Y, Z, G, H, C, and AV as water at an entertainment establishment located in BB, convened all of the nameless boxes who worked as water at the entertainment establishment located in BB as B B’s CP, cirth, and tried to put them as an organization in BB’s cirx, and then tried to put them out as new equipment in the area to be granted “CY”, “CY” and “CYY” to the effect that it is difficult for Defendant C, as the above, to see the fact that there is lack of understanding of the fact that there is lack of us to view that there is a lack of us to view that there is a lack of us to view that there is a lack of us to view that there is a lack of us to view that there is a lack of us to view that there is a new type of Y.

Defendant who has already been punished due to the composition, activities, etc. of a criminal organization is an advisory staff member supporting the maintenance and failure of the organization in the hinterland of the organization; Defendant E is a double-class leader leading the organization on behalf of the members of the organization; Defendant P is an executive member of the wharf with assistance from Defendant 0 and E in actual leading the organization of the organization in accordance with his order; Defendant D is a so-called behavior commander leader leading the members of the organization in compliance with the order of the members of the organization; Defendant Q, R, S, U, V, F, Y, Z, H, G, and AV; Defendant D, under the order of the members of the organization in charge of the operation of the organization in order to keep the organization and the organization of the organization in compliance with the direction of the members of the organization; and Defendant D, under the direction of the members of the organization in order to keep the organization and the organization of the organization in compliance with the order of the organization in preparation for the difference between the members of the organization and the employees of the organization.

On September 2009, Defendant A joined the CTS cafeteria located in Chungcheongnam-nam, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, with the knowledge that he was an organization of crime as above, Defendant A was aware that he was an organization of crime, and was recommended by BS as a member of the group of action.

On March 2007, Defendant A was aware of the fact that it was a violent organization in BB at the CE main point located in BB and became a criminal organization, Defendant A, who was recommended by C and joined as a member of the behavioral group.

At around 02:00 on July 15, 201, Defendant B, despite being aware that he was a violent organization in front of the CU occupation located in AT, was aware that he was an organization in the foregoing crime, he was recommended by C and joined as a behavioral member.

Defendant AB, on July 2009, was aware of the fact that it was a violent organization in BB at the CE main point located in BB, and became a criminal organization, and became a member of the behavioral group upon the solicitation of BS, which is the organization.

Defendant AC, around May 9, 2010, knew that it was a violent organization in CV office located in BB, he was aware that it was an organization of the above crime, and joined as a member of the behavioral group upon A’s recommendation.

B) The judgment of the court below

The court below stated that Defendant A, C, X, Y, I, Z, Z, AB, and AV made a statement that they joined the police organization as a substitute, and they did not consent to the above interrogation protocol and use it as evidence. Some Defendants denied the purport of consent and proof, but they did not agree to the above interrogation protocol because they are mixed with the victim's statement as to the separate charges other than the above facts charged. Since the above defendants denied the formation or accession of the "SSPPP" or the whole criminal organization, there is no difference between the contents and the above defendants, and it is difficult to believe its credibility, and therefore it is difficult to believe it, after examining the formation or accession of the crime organization based on the statements in the prosecutor's office and this court, the court below acquitted all of the facts charged on the following grounds.

① According to Defendant X, etc.’s statement at the prosecutorial office, in relation to the motive and motive of the formation, the salvists and CJ waves are crime groups against the opposite forces, and the Defendant was the former CJP members, and Defendant E was the former CJP members. As a result of the occurrence of a case such as exercising violence against others in the region to which CJ was granted, it was the creation of a new organization by newly combining the salvty and CJP members. However, it is not easy to agree with the fact that the Defendant, who was subject to criminal punishment due to suspicion of constituting a crime organization, etc., caused damage to other persons than the region to which CK was granted, thereby constituting a separate criminal organization with Defendant E, which was in a hostile relation.

② In relation to the time of formation, Defendant X et al. stated in the prosecutor’s office that P, U,W, and H et al. resolved to combine them with a new form of equipment from the Chinese Republic of China Republic of Korea to the new form of equipment on September 2005. However, in detail, it is not a crime organization with any objective, and it is not a vague statement that is unclear what contents and system have been binding. According to Defendant H’s investigation agency and this court’s statements, the above H et al. entered the military in around 2004 and was discharged from military service on or around August 2006, and formed the old frequency of service on or around September 2005, it is doubtful that the above facts were established as a crime organization for the purpose of violent crime.

③ In relation to the specific activities of Defendant A, B, AA, AB, and AC, each of the statements made by the prosecutions of Defendant A, B, AB, and AC is recognized as an organization with the purpose of violent crime, but in detail, there was no external activity such as receiving the credit rating or managing the drinking house sales from the given area as a regular executive of the drinking house, and there was no external activity such as the other party and war. A part of the above Defendants were admitted to the above organization and were able to receive money from the said organization as a full-time executive of the drinking house. As such, the amount received from the said group as a full-time executive of the said organization without paying the said organization, and there was no evidence suggesting that the said Defendants attempted to intervene in this right or sought funds otherwise in order to raise funds essential for the maintenance and activities of the criminal organization.

④ With respect to the command and command system, Defendant A, B, X, Z, AB used the name of greging to the ship to the ship, 90-year personnel, wreged to the ship’s horse, wreged to the ship if there is any wreging, wreging to the ship, and wreging to the ship, and immediately wreging to the military if there was an error, and stated to the effect that the Defendants received education in relation thereto. However, as there is no specific difference from the widely known fact that the above code of conduct or wedding was widely known, there is no doubt that the above case was actually existing in the colonial region, and there is no doubt that the Defendants, X, AB, and AB stated in each prosecutor’s office at the time of investigation, in light of the fact that considerable assaults were given to the ship’s wregnish, and that the Defendants were not aware of their role in the organization and command of the Ethical group, and that the Defendants were not aware of the organization and behavior of the 2.

Defendant A, B, X, AB, etc. stated in the prosecutor’s statement to the effect that it is "the grant tool is an organization with the aim of violent crime" in the prosecutor’s office. However, whether it is a legally criminal organization should be carefully determined based on objective evidence and circumstances, not the relevant Defendants’ statement. In addition, in relation to the details stated in this court, Defendant A denied the investigation by the prosecutor’s office at the time of the initial investigation and continued being conducted based on other persons’ statement, and Defendant B acknowledged that it would promptly be conducted based on the other persons’ statement. Defendant B is a question that there is a difference in the contents written in the investigator’s questioning and the protocol. Defendant A was a answer to the question with the contents written in the protocol. Defendant X stated that it was well known at the time of the initial investigation by the prosecutor’s office, but Defendant A stated to the effect that it was inevitable to recognize it without any choice by mentioning the Defendant A, who was detained at the time of the investigation by the prosecutor’s office, and it is difficult to recognize its credibility in light of such circumstances.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

① Relevant legal principles

The term "organization of a crime group" refers to the formation and establishment of a new crime group. As such, when a new crime group is formed by an existing crime group, it refers to a case where the organization is separated from the existing crime group and constitutes a separate crime group, as it is in a situation where the existing crime group is dissatisfyed or dissatisfyed, it refers to the case where the organization of a crime group in operation is completely changed to the extent that it can be recognized as a separate organization that is not identical with the existing crime group (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do102, Mar. 24, 200; 2004Do805, Apr. 23, 2004; 2009Do1274, Jun. 11, 2009).

An organization whose purpose is to commit a crime provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a combination formed by many and specified persons with a minimum ventilation system that leads the organization or maintains internal order under the common purpose of committing a crime provided for in the above Act, and even if the combination is organized with continuing and leading systems formed by many and specified persons, such an organization shall not be deemed a crime organization provided for in the above Act unless its members have common purpose for a crime provided for in the above Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Do1829, Oct. 10, 1997; 2004Do209, Jul. 8, 2004).

② Even if the statement of the Defendants acknowledged that the Defendants joined the above-mentioned meeting on September 2005, which is the time when the prosecutor asserts that the Defendants joined the above-mentioned meeting, the Defendants, who were merely 16 persons (except the Defendants H), did not gather money in the plaza and want to engage in a new food-raising activity while taking advantage of their desire to do so. It is also difficult to view that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that some of the Defendants did not participate in the above-mentioned meeting for a certain period of time, including the fact that they did not appear to have joined the meeting, and that the Defendants were not aware of the fact that they did not participate in the above-mentioned meeting for the purpose of distributing the cJ staff, and that the Defendants did not have any way to establish a new organization or a new cJ rules that did not have any sufficient force to regulate the organization and a new cJ staff, as well as to establish a new organization or a new cJ force.

In full view of various circumstances, it is difficult to view the Defendants as a systematic combination with a continuous command system, with the common purpose of committing a specific crime under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, even if the Defendants were to have formed the organization of the organization of "assigning so-called", and even if they were to have formed the organization of "assigning so-called", this is merely a failure or meeting in a specific community that does not reach a violent crime group under Article 4 of the same Act, and it is difficult to view it as an organized group with a continuous

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that the statements in the trial of the witness Z and DM, which seem to be consistent with the fact that the defendants performed by forming the vested mal wave, are merely abstract or exaggerated statements in light of the above facts acknowledged. In addition, the above facts are insufficient to reject the above recognition even if the statements such as each investigation report submitted in the trial of the party are combined.

Ultimately, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as violation of the rules of evidence and misunderstanding of legal principles as to criminal organizations provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

The prosecutor's argument in this part is without merit.

2) Article 4 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "a person who forms an organization or group under paragraph (1) or joins such an organization or group shall be punished by aggravating the power of such organization or group, or by a half of the long-term or short-term punishment for such crime, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual injury by an organization, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury by an organization, etc.), violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury by an organization, etc.), and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (harm by an organization, etc.)," and Article 4 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "a person who forms an organization or group under paragraph (1), or joins such an organization or group, etc. to maintain the existence and maintenance of such an organization or group, shall not be punished by a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as seen earlier."

Each decision of the court below to this purport is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that there were errors as alleged by the prosecutor.

This part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3) The part of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual conflict of organization, etc.), and the part of the public conflict, "abrogating the power of grant type and force of strike, which is a criminal organization", "abroging the power of force as a member of the grant-type organization", and "abroging the defendant from the victims who were aware that the defendant was the victim of the violence organization grant-type and propagation assistance."

A) Summary of each of the facts charged

① Defendant D

On June 23, 2011, the Defendant stated that “the victim CZ (n, 43 years of age) who is its owner at CY station in CY located in CY said, “the victim would drink alcoholic beverages in the middle, and make alcoholic beverages later.” However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent to pay an ordinary drinking value from the beginning by force as an organized member of the FSP as well. As above, the Defendant conspired with the victim, who was aware that he was an employee of the “SPPPP,” and was provided with an alcoholic beverage and an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 100,000,000 at the market price from the victim’s seat, i.e., he was provided with an alcoholic beverage and an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 570,000 at the market price. In addition, the Defendant took advantage of the value of KRW 570,000 from the victim in a similar manner as above around October 22, 2011.

② Defendant C.

On May 2009, the Defendant stated to the effect that the victim BO (here, 41 years of age) who is a business owner at the AU summary point that he was unable to know of May 2009 "I will see this regular course of business." The Defendant, who was aware that the Defendant was an employee of the KU summary point, was an employee of the KU summary point, responded to the Defendant to be a "commercial affairs" in the name of the above main point if he refuses his employment request, and without any choice to be a victim who was aware of the fact that he was an employee of the KU branch, would be subject to certain danger and injury if he refuses his employment request, and the Defendant responded to be a "commercial affairs" in the above main point if he did not regularly work at the above main point or provide the victim with any other services. The Defendant, on the ground that from May 2009 to September 20 of the same year, 200 won was under the control of the above main point by working in the position of "commercial affairs".

On July 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the 200,000 won would be reduced” to the victim BO (the age of 41) at the AU summary point. However, the Defendant did not have any intent to pay a normal drinking value from the beginning through force upon force as an organized member of the Organization, but did not have any intent to pay a normal drinking value from the beginning. The Defendant conspired with the victim as above and was aware that she was an employee of the 300,000 won of the market price at the 200,000,000 won was provided from the victim who was aware that she was an employee of the 300,000 won of the market price at the 300,000,000 won of the 30,000 won of the 200,000 won of the 200,000 won of the 30,0000 won of the 200,000 won of the 201.

(3) Defendant A

Around June 16, 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim CZ (the 42 years of age), a business owner of CY CY located in CY, would drink alcoholic beverages later,” but did not intend to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning by force as an organized member of the Food and Drug so that he/she would drink alcoholic beverages later. As above, the Defendant was provided with an alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 200,000,00 at the market price from the victim, who was aware that he/she was an employee of the FY TX, and was provided with an alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 40,00,000 at around September 14, 2010. The Defendant further provided the victim with an alcoholic beverage value equivalent to KRW 400,000,000 at the market price by force around February 8, 201, and by force around February 4, 2011.

As a result, the defendant habitually took money and valuables from the victim through the threat of force of the violent organization, which is a criminal organization.

(4) Defendant AA

On December 12, 2010, the Defendant stated that “the 54 years of age will reduce the drinking value” to the victim DB (the 54 years of age) who is a business owner at the DA AT’s main point. However, in fact, “the 600,000 won of the market price would have been reduced by force as an organized member,” and there was no intention to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning. As above, the Defendant conspired the victim with the victim, who was aware that he was an employee of the "faccination for food,” and was provided with the 8.10,000 won of the market price from the victim, namely, by paying the 2.10,000 won of the 210,000 won of the 2.

Around January 5, 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim (hereinafter “the victim”) who is a business owner at the DDA located in ATS refers to 36 years of age,” and the victim, who was aware that the Defendant was an employee of the above Do headquarters, refused his employment request, responded to the Defendant’s work as the above Do headquarters’s title “general affairs” without any kind of danger if he refuses his employment request. The Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant, was in charge of managing the above Do headquarters since he did not regularly attend the above Do headquarters or provide the victim with specific services, on the ground that the Defendant, from January 2, 2010 to October 22, 2010, 20000 won or 250 million won in cash as a result of the threat of force of the organization-based violence, which is a criminal organization, and thus, the Defendant’s management expenses were to be paid in full from each 200,000 won or 250,000 won in cash.

Around July 6, 2010, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim CZ (n, 42 years of age), a business owner, drinked on credit, and later would drink the drinking value.” However, the Defendant did not have any intent to pay the drinking value normally from the beginning by force as an organized member. As above, the Defendant conspiredd the victim and was provided with the victim with the alcohol and alcohol equivalent to KRW 4.10,00 won at the market price at the time of the victim, namely, “the victim was provided with the alcohol and alcohol equivalent to KRW 4.1 million at the time of the victim’s death,” and the Defendant took advantage of the influence of the victim’s organization, which is a criminal organization, at around 100,000 won, at around 21, 201, and 100,000 won by force on the part of the victim. In addition, the Defendant took advantage of the influence of the victim’s organization’s force on the part of the victim.

6. Defendant A, C

On December 1, 2009, the Defendants stated to the effect that Defendant C employed Defendant C as a regular worker at the victim BO (hereinafter referred to as “A”) who is a business owner in AT’s AU where the date is unknown. The victim, who was aware that Defendant C was an employee of the “influent Gu”, did not refuse his employment request, responded to the Defendant A to work as the “confluent cition” of the above main place without any fluent and inevitable reason. On the ground that Defendant A was in the above main place of attendance at work on a regular basis or without providing the victim with services, etc. on the ground that the said main place of attendance at the above main place of the above main place of attendance was in charge of managing the said main place of the said situation, from December 2009 to October 11, 2010, 20000 won or 200 won by force from the victim’s organization or 200 won by force from the victim’s organization under the pretext of violence.

As a result, the Defendants were able to receive money from the victims through the threat of force of violent organizations, a criminal organization, in common.

7. Defendant B and C

On June 1, 201, the Defendants stated that Defendant C is an employee of the victim BO (hereinafter “FO”) who is a business owner at the AU shelter point that he was unable to know the last day of June 201, and the victim C was aware that he was an employee of the "gradation of FO, 42 years of age.” The victim, who was aware of the Defendant C, was an employee of the "gradation of FO", responded to the Defendant B to work as the "gradation of FO" of the above main point without any force of the victim's organization's force from June 201 to October 201 of the same year so that the victim, who was aware that he was an employee of FO, would be subject to certain harm if he refused his employment request, was forced to work as the "gradation of FO" of FO. B, even though he did not work regularly at the above main point or provide the victim with specific services, he did not directly manage the above main point from the above main point.

8. Defendant P

Around November 1, 2010, the Defendant stated that “the victim CY (n, 42 years of age) who is the owner of the business at CY station stated that “the Defendant drinks alcohol on credit, and the drinking value will take it later.” However, in fact, the Defendant merely performed credit by force as an organized member of the so-called “faging so-called “faging so-called so-called faging,” and did not have any intent to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning. As above, the Defendant conspired with the victim and was provided by the victim who was aware that he was an employee of the “faging so-called faging so-called faging so-called faging so-called “faging so-called faging sofag,” and refaged it by neglecting the power of “faging sofaging sofaging”

In addition, the Defendant habitually committed the following similar methods: (a) around August 26, 2011, around 80,000 won from the victim; (b) around October 3 of the same year, around 70,000 won; and (c) under the influence of violent organizations, which are criminal organizations, the crime organization, the crime organization, the threat of force.

9 Defendant F

On February 2, 2011, the Defendant stated that “the victim CZ (n, 42 years of age) who is a business owner at CY station that “the Defendant drinks alcoholic beverages on credit, and the drinking value will later be carried on.” However, in fact, the Defendant did not have any intent to pay an ordinary drinking value from the beginning by force as an organized member of the so-called “fescion sofing sof that he would drink on credit,” and did not have any intent to pay an ordinary drinking value from the beginning. As above, the Defendant conspired the victim and received an alcoholic beverage equivalent to KRW 600,000 at the market price from the victim who was aware that he was an employee of the “fescion sofescion” and returned to the match. By doing so, the Defendant took advantage of the force of the violent organization, a criminal organization, e.g., the force of the “fing sofescion.”

On July 201, 201, the Defendant stated to the effect that "on credit, 36 years of age" DoG (hereinafter referred to as "on credit") the victim DG (hereinafter referred to as "MG") who is a business owner at DF main point on which it is impossible to identify the first day of July 201, the Defendant did not have any intent to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning only by force as an organized member of the 'ging so-called "ging so-called so-called so-called "in fact-called so-called so-called so-called 's so-called so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's so-called 's 's so-called 's 's so-called 's so-called 's 's 's so-called 's 's 's 's 's ' and 's 100,000 won '.

The Defendant, from January 201 to October 201, 201, took advantage of the need for ATD located between the Defendant and the victim DD located in AT, throughout several times, the sum of the drinking values of KRW 2,00,000,00 in several similar ways from the victim DE (In these years, 38 years of age) who is a business owner, and neglected the power of the "cognition of violent organization," which is a criminal organization.

From around 2010 to early November 201, 201, the Defendant 201, from the AU’s main point of view, 2010 to the first patrolmen, 1.2.5 million won in total from the victim BO (the 43 years of age), who is the owner of the business, 4 times, and 1.250,00 won in four ways similar to the above, was under the influence of the violent organization, which is a criminal organization, and boomed the victim’s money and valuables by emphasizing the power of the violent organization, which is a criminal organization. Defendant W 10

Around July 10, 2010, the Defendant expressed to the effect that “the victim CY (n, 42 years of age) who is its business owner drinks alcohol in the country,” and that “the drinking value will later be carried out.” However, the Defendant merely performed credit by force as an organized member of “cognive spathm wave,” and did not have any intent to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning. The Defendant, as above, she was aware that she was an employee of the “grpathm wave,” provided 2.5 million won at the market price, i.e., e., a victim who was aware that she was an employee of the “grpathm wave,” and she went back to the match. In addition, on September 21, 2010, the Defendant took advantage of the force of the violent organization, which is a criminal organization, and provided 2.5 million won at around 27.1, 2010 won at around the same time with the above similar method.

From July 201, to November 26, 201, the Defendant 5 met the alcohol value of 2.260,000 won in a way similar to the preceding paragraph from DG (n's, 37 years of age), which is the main owner of the DF, at the DF’s main point from July 201 to November 26, 200, and neglected the force of violent organizations, which is a criminal organization, on five occasions.

As a result, the defendant habitually took money and valuables from the victims through the threat of force of violent organizations, which are criminal organizations.

1. Defendant F, W

From September 4, 2010, Defendants jointly agreed to the effect that “the victim CZ (e.g., 42 years of age) who is the owner of the business at CY station stated that “the victim CZ (e.g., drinking, drinking, drinking, and drinking will be made later.” However, in fact, the Defendants did not have any intent to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning by force as an organization member of the crime group. The Defendants conspired with the victim as above, and were provided with the victim, who was aware that he was an operation employee of the "SPPPPPP", provided the victim with an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 8.10,00 won at the market price, and went back thereto, she took advantage of the power of force of the violent organization, which is a crime organization, and thereby, the Defendants habitually interfered with the crime organization’s force by force and force of violence.”

(2) Defendant Y

Around September 13, 2010, the Defendant stated that “the victim CY (n, 42 years of age) who is the owner of the business at CY station stated that “the victim’s Z(s) drinks alcohol in the middle, and the drinking value will last be drinking later.” However, the Defendant merely performed credit by force as an organized member of the “cognative spathm wave” and did not have any intent to pay a normal drinking value from the beginning. As above, the Defendant conspired with the victim, who was aware that she was an employee of the “gregnative spathm wave”, was provided with an alcoholic beverage amounting to KRW 200,000 at the market price, and went back to the match. On June 11, 2011, the Defendant took advantage of the drinking value equivalent to KRW 200,000 from the victim by means of the same similar method as above.

13 Defendant G

Around November 9, 2011, the Defendant stated that “the victim CZ (n, 43 years of age) who is the owner of the plant at CY station stated that “the victim CZ (n, 43 years of age will drink alcohol in the middle, and the drinking value will later be drinking later.” However, the Defendant merely performed credit by force as an organized member of the “cognative spathm wave” and did not have any intent to pay the normal drinking value from the beginning. As above, the Defendant conspired the victim, who was aware that he was an employee of the “gregnative spathm wave”, received the 610,000 won of the market price from the victim and went back to the match. On November 23, 2011, the Defendant took advantage of the 400,000 won value from the victim by means of the same similar method as above.

B) The judgment of the court below

As seen earlier, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of all the charges on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge each of the facts charged, or that there was no other evidence to acknowledge each of the above facts charged. In addition, each victim’s investigation agency and testimony at court, which correspond to the above facts charged, are inadmissible or not reliable for the following reasons.

① The police statement of the victim CZ in the above facts charged except the defendant A consented to all the defendants as evidence, and CZ did not properly reflect the above part of the statement because it stated in the court below that "at the time of the statement by the police, the defendants did not seem to have been aware that they had been drinking at the time of the statement," and it did not properly reflect the above part of the above statement, so the above part of the above statement cannot be admitted as evidence. Thus, the above part of the statement cannot be admitted as evidence. The defendant's statement of the police does not contain any specific statement as to how the defendant was drinking at the level of 1.2 million won in the police statement, and it is difficult to view that the court of the court of the court below did not say that the defendant was drinking at the time of the investigation by the investigative agency, and there was no statement that the defendant did not have been drinking at the time of the investigation, and it did not receive the value from the defendant, and it is difficult to prove that the defendant did not have any influence.

② The victim BO stated that the police can not refuse to hold a standing tin as a regular member. If the tin-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-open-air.

③ Even based on the police officers of the victim DB and the court below’s statement, Defendant AA merely appears to have gone beyond the drinking value calculation without paying part of the said conduct, and it is difficult to deem that Defendant A had committed a crime of aiding and abetting the statement of the facts constituting the pertinent complaint by neglecting or threatening the DB’s power.

④ In light of the fact that the written statement by the police of the victim DE is not clear as to how the defendant F and H were forced to exercise their authority by any means, but the DE is not subject to the conflict between the defendants in the court below and the court below, the victim DE's police statement is hard to believe in light of the fact that the police statement by the victim DE was made to the effect that the defendant F and H had induced the statements by referring to one's own business in relation to the details of the statement at the police station.

5) In the case of the police statement of the victim DG, each Defendants consented to the admissibility of the evidence, and there was no fact that the victim DG was forced from each of the pertinent Defendants in the court of original trial, and the police did not properly reflect the above part of the above statement because it stated that "at the time of making a statement in the police, the Defendants did not have the right to leave or to leave from the Defendants at the time of making a statement, and did not properly reflect it." Thus, the above part of the above statement cannot be admitted as evidence.

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

(1) As seen earlier, even if the Defendants either did not form or form a “displacement” or did not constitute a criminal organization under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the aforementioned “displacement” does not constitute a criminal organization. As such, each of the facts charged on the premise that there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants is acquitted.

② In order for each of the facts charged to be recognized as a crime of attack, it must include specific contents such as a means of attack, which objectively limits the freedom of decision-making or may cause harm and injury to the point of interfering with the freedom of decision-making. As seen earlier, inasmuch as the part of each of the facts charged is not found to be guilty that “the Defendants, who was aware of the victim as a criminal organization, was subject to the influence of violent organization grant type and organ waves, was withdrawal from the victims,” which was identified as a crime group, the means of attack in each of the above facts charged can not be seen as having committed a crime of assault or threat of harm and injury and thus, it cannot be seen as having committed a crime of robbery under the Criminal Act, “the alcohol would drink later,” “the alcohol would have reduced the drinking value,” and “the regular employment rate of inside and outside,” and “the above acts of assault or threat of harm and injury to each of the above facts charged cannot be seen as having been committed within the same scope of harm and injury.”

③ Furthermore, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the victims’ evidence methods related to each statement were inadmissible or not reliable, and that the witness witness DM also stated that “the victim’s business owner has a friendly relationship with the Defendants, and that the victim CZ was engaged in a friendly business with some Defendants,” the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law.

Ultimately, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted all of the charges is justifiable in that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged as above. The Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit. (2) In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the part of Defendant D’s attempted murder and the part of habitual injury on July 20, 208.

(A) Facts of attempted murder

1) The assertion

D Even if it can be sufficiently recognized that “AV intention” was to commit the crime of August 8, 2007, the judgment below which acquitted the part concerning the attempted murder on the ground that there was no intention to murder, is unlawful.

2) Determination

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the court below found Defendant D not guilty of the charge of attempted murder on the ground that the intentional murder cannot be recognized, and found Defendant D guilty of the charge of attempted murder. In light of the records, the court below's determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error as alleged by the prosecutor, in light of the following: (a) the relevant evidence was examined in light of the records; (b) Defendant D took a knife with knife by prok hand; and (c) Defendant D knife AV with knife with knife with knife with the left hand; and (d) the back part of the left knife with knife with knife with the knife with the knife.

This part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

(B) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury by an organization, etc.) on July 20, 2008

1) The assertion

According to the statement made by Defendant 2 in the investigation agency, although the defendant D could recognize the face of the defendant's Z on July 20, 2008 and the head, bluri part, etc. were habitually injured, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is unlawful.

2) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant D, around July 20, 2008, around 01:00, at the front of the CW laundry Station located in Annex AT in Chungcheongnamnam-gun, had the face part of the Defendant’s Z, which was an ex post facto organization, in drinking without any reason under the influence of alcohol. Accordingly, Defendant D violated the rule on the head and blish part, etc. due to the outbreak of over-the-counter Defendant 2, thereby causing serious injury to the victim’s face that cannot be known habitually for the purpose of maintaining and maintaining the force of the violent organization, which is a criminal organization, to the extent that the victim’s treatment period cannot be known.

3) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that Defendant D’s protocol of statement (No. 33 of the evidence list 201No. 64) against Defendant 2, which is the evidence consistent with this part of the facts charged, was not admissible as evidence, and that this part of the facts charged is not admissible as evidence, in light of the fact that Defendant D consented, and the prosecutor presented the above protocol of statement as witness in the lower court, and the prosecutor presented the above protocol of statement to the effect that “if there is any portion of fact or misunderstanding, the police officer three and the following day immediately before the police investigation was conducted, as the remaining day after the remaining day after the remaining day after the police investigation was conducted, and it is not sufficient to recognize the establishment of the petition.” Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime.

4) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Defendant 2 made a false statement at the court below on the second trial date of the trial in the court below. Defendant 2 tried to deduct Defendant 1, etc. when Defendant D was detained, and made a statement by reducing criminal facts. Defendant 2’s statement in the court below on the establishment of the authenticity of the police statement, which clearly reversed Defendant 2’s statement in the court below on the second trial date, and thus, Defendant 2’s written statement in the police as to Defendant 2 is admissible.

In addition, Defendant 2 made a relatively detailed and detailed statement on this part of the facts charged in the police protocol, and in light of the relationship with Defendant D, I, andY, Defendant 2 did not seem to have made a false statement even when he did not have made a criminal act that was not Defendant D at the time of the police investigation, in full view of the following: (a) the statement of Defendant 2’s police officer’s written statement concerning this part of the facts charged and the written statement of Defendant Z police officer’s written statement of statement of Defendant 2 and the written statement of trial of Defendant Z are credibility. Accordingly, it is sufficient to find the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

In the end, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence.

However, Article 4(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "a person who forms an organization or group under paragraph (1) or joins such an organization or group shall exercise the power of such organization or group, or who commits an offense under Article 2 or 3 of the above Act in order to maintain the existence of such an organization or group, punishment shall be aggravated by up to 1/2 of the long-term or short-term punishment for such offense. As seen earlier, the term "gressive distribution" does not constitute an organization of crime under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act or does not constitute an organization of crime under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and thus, the above part of the facts charged premised on such premise is not guilty because it falls under the case where there is no proof of a crime. Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion is with merit.

(3) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant C’s injury to a police officer on December 2009

(A) The argument

In light of Defendant C’s criminal records, violence and recidivism, etc., the judgment of the court below which judged that there is no evidence to acknowledge habituality, even though the crime under this part of the facts charged was habitually committed, is unlawful.

(B) Determination

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted Defendant C of the charges of habitual injury because it is not possible to recognize the habition of violence, and in light of the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and it does not seem that there was an error as alleged by the prosecutor. The Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

(4) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to Defendant I and Y’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group of organizations, etc., deadly weapons, etc.) on May 15, 2008

(A) The argument

According to the statement made in the investigation agency of Defendant Z, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant I and Y of this part of the facts charged on May 15, 2008, even though it can sufficiently be recognized that Defendant D committed the crime under this part of the facts charged, is unlawful.

(B) Summary of the facts charged

피고인 I, Y는 피고인 D과 공동하여, 2008. 5. 15, 02:00경 AT 소재 AW 여관 313호실에서 피고인 D은 피고인 으로부터 피고인 Z이 위 여관에 있다는 전화를 받고 찾아가, 피고인 Z에게 "얌마"라고 불렀으나 피고인 이 "예"라고만 대답하자 평소 피고인 Z이 자신의 전화를 피하고 전화번호를 바꾸는 등 조직생활을 하지 않으려는 것에 화가 난데다가 "예, 형님!"이라고 대답하지 않고 그냥 "예"라고만 대답했다는 이유로, 피고인 Z에게 "예? 너 나와 봐 개새끼야"라고 욕설을 하며 주먹으로 여관 복도로 뒤따라 나온 피고인 Z의 얼굴 부분을 수회 때렸다.

Accordingly, Defendant D, who used the above YI knife and knife the body of Defendant I, YI knife the body of Defendant 30 minutes by drinking and salute, and Defendant D knife the body of Defendant knife knife with knife knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, so that Defendant D knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and Defendant D knife knife knife knife knife.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The lower court determined that the Defendant 1 and Y’s statement on Defendant 2, which correspond to this part of the facts charged, was not guilty on the ground that Defendant 1 and Y did not have any admissibility due to Defendant 1’s consent, and that there was no evidence to acknowledge the above facts charged, and rather, Defendant 1 and Y did not appear in the process of Defendant D’s Z at the scene of Defendant I and Y, and that this part of the facts charged constitute a time when there was no proof of crime

(D) Judgment of the court below

Defendant Z made a false statement at the court of original instance on the second trial date of the trial, “The truth was stated by the investigative agency, and the latter was returned, and the latter was made a false statement at the court of original instance. When Defendant D is detained, Defendant I, etc. want to be deducted, and thus, Defendant I, etc. tried to reduce the crime and make a statement.” The police statement at the court of original instance on the authenticity of the police statement, which clearly reversed the statement at the court of original instance on the authenticity of the police statement, is admissible.

In addition, in light of the fact that Defendant Z has relatively detailed and detailed statements concerning this part of the facts charged in the police protocol, and that Defendant I, Y and Y have an explanation to support the motive of reversal of the statement made in the court of the court of the court below, and that Defendant Z cannot be said to have made a false statement by leaving Defendant I and Y to the crime that was not committed by Defendant I and Y at the time of the police investigation, it is sufficient to find Defendant Z guilty of this part of the facts charged.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, Article 4 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "a person who forms an organization or group under paragraph (1) or joins such an organization or group shall be punished by aggravating the power of such organization or group, or by aggravating the crime under Article 2 or 3 of the same Act for the continuation and maintenance of such an organization or group, up to 1/2 of the long-term or short-term punishment for the crime. As seen above, "gravating the crime" does not constitute an organization of crime under Article 4 (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and thus, the above part of the facts charged premised on such premise is not guilty when there is no proof of the crime. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion in this part is with merit.

(5) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant P and W’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group of organizations, etc., deadly weapons, etc.)

(A) The argument

Although there is sufficient evidence to prove that Defendant P and W committed this part of the facts charged, the lower judgment that acquitted Defendant P and W of this part of the facts charged is unlawful.

(B) Summary of the facts charged

Defendant P and W jointly with Defendant F and G to the effect that, at around 17:00, it is difficult to know the trade name of the second floor of the building where CB stores located in AT are located, Defendant P, an executive officer at the wharf level, who is the executive officer at the terminal of the case where “ging-gu” was “fluent”, and that Defendant D, the executive officer at the head of the action registry, took action to neglect and prevent the formation of the group, thereby causing an “defluence”, and ordered Defendant F andW, who are the executive officers at the action registry, to refer to the term “fluently” to Defendant F and W, who are the executive officers at the action registry, and to the latter.

Defendant F and W immediately called Defendant D, I, Y, H, G, C, and AA as the above office staff, and Defendant F, W, and W, who were officers in charge of the follow-up operation of the Defendant F, A, and A, followed up to the entrance of a dead-end operation staff of the Defendant F, A, and AA, had Defendant D (the 79-year birth level) fill up a dangerous object at the floor, let Defendant D (the 79-year birth level) cut up to the right angle, and turn down the part of the Defendant D’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her arm her, and continued to set off the part of the her her her her her her her her her her her her her her arm her her her her her her her, and ordered the part of the her her her.

As a result, Defendant D, I, Y, H, G, C, A, and A have suffered her butt trade with which the treatment period cannot be known, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants jointly carried dangerous objects in order to maintain and maintain a 'distinguing softion' of violent organizations, which are criminal organizations, and inflicted injury on their assistants.

(C) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found Defendant A and D not guilty on the ground that each police interrogation protocol (No. 32 of the evidence list No. 2012, No. 11, No. 32 of the evidence list, No. 82 of the separate evidence list), Defendant A, and each statement of the prosecutor’s interrogation protocol against Defendant A and C, which correspond to the facts charged in this part, are difficult to believe for the following reasons, and it is difficult to readily conclude that Defendant B was involved in the above crime immediately due to the fact that Defendant C was at the site of Defendant W, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant P and W was involved in the crime in this part

① After the police, Defendant D stated that Defendant F, W was at the time of Y, I, H, and G, Defendant F or W was at the time of her own contact with Defendant F, and that Defendant F orW was at the time of C, A, and A. However, Defendant F or W was at the time of her own testimony and did not clearly state whether the aforementioned statement was clearly identified and accurately accumulated with Defendant F and W. As such, Defendant D’s unilateral statement or reasoning appears to have been made.

② Defendant A knew at the police and the prosecution that Defendant A instructed Defendant B to be mixed with Defendant F and W. Defendant A stated that Defendant B was “odiing out” and her bucks with 50 mucks. However, Defendant A’s instructions did not see P at the time, but Defendant F knew that it was “I already mixed with P,” and it was merely the side of Defendant A’s reasoning that Defendant F was aware of it, and that Defendant W assault was not accurately seen at the time, but it was not a assault. In addition, Defendant A stated that Defendant A’s direction was merely the side of Defendant A’s prosecution, and that Defendant A stated that the part of Defendant P’s order when the court of the court of the court below stated that it was in relation to the part of Defendant W was not consistent with the part of the judgment below, but that it was not consistent with the part of Defendant B’s order at the time of the investigation agency or that it was not reversed when it made a statement by itself at the time of the investigation agency.

③ Defendant C also stated in the prosecution that he was aware that Defendant P was convened by F and W in compliance with the direction of Defendant P. However, the above statement was made in the court of the court below and it was merely based on A’s statement and did not make such statement. The above Defendant’s prosecutor’s statement seems to be merely a conjecture.

(D) Judgment of the court below

Defendant A, C, and D’s statement to the effect that it is difficult to reverse the above Defendants’ statement to the investigation agency; (1) Defendant D’s statement to the effect that it was hard to reverse the Defendants’ statement; (2) Defendant C’s statement to the effect that it was hard to view that it was an assault to the lower court’s end at the time of this case’s crime; and (3) Defendant C’s statement to the effect that it was difficult to view that it was an assault to the lower court’s end at the time of this case’s crime; and (4) Defendant C’s statement to the effect that it was difficult to view that it was an assault to the extent that it was not possible to view that it was an assault to the lower court’s end of the crime; and (4) Defendant C’s statement to the effect that it was not possible to see that it was an assault to the lower court’s end at the time of this case’s crime; and (4) Defendant C’s statement to the effect that it was not possible to see that it was an assault to the lower court.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant W of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the law of evidence and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, Article 4(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that "a person who forms an organization or group under paragraph (1) or joins such an organization or group shall be punished by aggravating the power of such organization or group or by aggravating the crime under Article 2 or 3 of the same Act, if the crime is committed in order to maintain the existence of such an organization or group, up to 1/2 of the long-term or short-term punishment for the crime. As seen earlier, "gravating the crime" does not constitute an organization or an organization of crime under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and ultimately, the above part of the facts charged on the premise of the crime is not guilty because it falls under the case where there is no proof of the crime. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion in this part is justified.

Furthermore, as to whether Defendant P committed a crime listed in this part of the facts charged jointly with the above Defendants, it is true that Defendant P did not instruct Defendant F, etc. to commit a crime identical to this part of the facts charged, in light of the following: (a) the relationship of ex post facto distribution is established among the Defendants; (b) the crime under the inner name among each of the crimes of this case shows a certain behavior based on ex post facto distribution relationship; and (c) the contents of the speech that Defendant A was taken from Defendant F before the assault was committed.

However, it is difficult to find guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant P who did not exist in the instant crime site solely on the grounds of suspicion or conjection based on the above uncertain circumstances, the statement, etc. by Defendant A and C, etc., and whose role as a co-principal is not actually shared, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged, and therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same effect is just, and there is no error as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor. This part of the prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

(6) Fact-finding or misunderstanding of legal principles as to Defendant A’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group or injury by an organization, etc., with a deadly weapon, etc.) on February 2010

(A) The argument

According to the statements made by the victims' investigative agency, the judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A of this part of the facts charged, although it could be found guilty, is unlawful.

(B) Determination

The court below rejected Defendant A and AB from the investigative agency and the court of first instance on February 2010, on the ground that Defendant A did not have committed the crime of this part of the facts charged in which there was no fact that Defendant A and AB had been committed with the view to the camping net, and Defendant AB and A stated at the investigative agency on December 2009 that there was no fact corresponding to the Defendant, and thus, found Defendant AB and A was not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence to acknowledge this part of the facts charged. In light of the records, the court below’s decision is just and acceptable, and it does not seem to have been erroneous as otherwise alleged by the prosecutor. The Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

C. The assertion and determination of unreasonable sentencing

(1) Defendant D, C, and W’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against Defendant D, C, and W (4 years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant D, two years of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant C, and two years of suspended execution for Defendant W) is too unreasonable.

(2) Prosecutor’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing against the Defendants

Defendant D, A, B, C, E,V, F, W, G, and H (Defendant A, Defendant B, Defendant B, two years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year, three years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year, three years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years, three years of suspended sentence of imprisonment for three years, Defendant V: Fines 2 million won, Defendant I, G, and H: one year of suspended sentence of imprisonment for one year and six years of suspended sentence) are too unreasonable.

(3) Determination

(A) As seen earlier with respect to Defendant D, W, and I, part of the appeal against the Defendants by the prosecutor is accepted, and the part of the judgment of the court below on the conviction against the Defendants in relation to a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act or one-day crime is reversed, and the decision is again made after the pleading, and thus, the judgment on the Defendant D, W, and I’s allegation of unfair sentencing against Defendant D, W, and I is omitted.

(B) As to Defendant A, B, C, E, V, F, G, and H

Considering the fact that the Defendants have made efforts to be equipped with the substance of violent organizations for the purpose of committing a crime, such as self-harming, etc., by setting mutual tensions for a considerable period of time under the name of a regional group of ex post facto distribution, the Defendants appear to have been engaged in such efforts. In the event the Defendants’ meetings and activities continue to be maintained in the same behavior as this case, there is a risk of undermining the peace in future given areas and peace of lives of ordinary citizens, so it is necessary to strictly warn the Defendants in advance so that they do not commit acts of violence, such as organizing and collective meetings, and stopping of violence, etc. In addition, in certain crimes, the protection of human dignity and physical integrity should not be abandoned according to mutual strict commitments. However, even if the Defendants were unable to punish the Defendants as statutory penalty, there is sufficient reason to punish the Defendants solely on the basis of individual violent acts committed by themselves.

In light of the above circumstances, considering the Defendants’ nature and behavior, character and environment, criminal records, mutual relationship and role of the Defendants, the method and consequence of each of the instant offenses, etc., the lower court’s punishment against Defendant C is too heavy or less, and the remaining Defendants’ punishment is not deemed unreasonable as it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, Defendant C’s assertion of unfair sentencing and the prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing against the above Defendants are without merit.

3. Conclusion

Defendant C’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s Defendant D [the remainder of the appeal except for the part not guilty as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury) of July 208, 2008), A, B, C, E,O, P, Q, R, T, F, X, X, G, H, AB, AB, and Defendant W, I are all dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the remainder of the appeal against Defendant C and the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant C is without merit. Since the Prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant W, I, and Y and some appeals against Defendant D are with merit, the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing, and the Prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing against Defendant D, W, and I, Q, R, Te, T, T, T, F, F, X, G, G, A, AB, and the part concerning the guilty and punishment of each of the Defendant’s respective organizations, etc., and the part concerning the guilty and punishment of Defendants 1 and 5.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence is as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment of the court in addition to adding the following facts constituting the crime and the summary of the evidence to the corresponding column of the relevant defendant. Therefore, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the

[Defendant I, I, and I]

원심 범죄사실 제1항을 아래의 범죄사실로 변경한다. 피고인 D, I, Y는 공동하여, 2008. 5. 15. 02:00경 AT 소재 AW 여관 313호실에서 피고인 D은 피고인 I으로부터 피고인 Z이 위 여관에 있다는 전화를 받고 찾아가, 피고인 Z에게 "얌마"라고 불렀으나 피고인 Z이 "예"라고만 대답하자 평소 피고인 이 자신의 전화를 피하고 전화번호를 바꾸는 등 조직생활을 하지 않으려는 것에 화가 난데다가 "예, 형님!"이라고 대답하지 않고 그냥 "예"라고만 대답했다는 이유로, 피고인 Z에게 "예? 너 나와 봐 개새끼야"라고 욕설을 하며 주먹으로 여관 복도로 뒤따라 나온 피고인 Z의 얼굴 부분을 수회 때렸다.

In this regard, both people who were in the way of drinking and drinking, and Defendant D, in the above 313 room, rewing Defendant I and Y, set up the Defendant I and Y in their own possession, and set up the Defendant I and Y in their own possession, so the Defendant Z was able to read the Defendant Z, and the Defendant Z was able to have the Defendant Z more than 30 minutes of drinking and drinking, and the Defendant Z was able to use the Defendant’s body by drinking and drinking, and by drinking and launching, it was difficult to use the Defendant’s corridor as a hallway, which is a dangerous object at this point, and it was 5 minutes more than 5 minutes more.

In addition, Defendant D instructed Defendant D to “this knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife,” Defendant D’s knife knife knife knife knife, which is a deadly weapon at the between knife and knife knife knife knife knife, knife knife knife knife knife, knife knife knife, knife knife knife, knife knife knife knife, and knife knife knife knife knife, and knife knife knife.

The following evidence is added to the summary of the evidence of the above crime.

1. Legal statement of the Z in its original state;

1. Statement of the police concerning the Z;

[Defendant D]

The following facts are added to Defendant D under Article 1-b.6 of the lower judgment’s criminal facts. From July 20, 2008, Defendant D, at around 01:00, around the front day of the CW laund site located in AT-gun, Chungcheongnam-nam-gun, he considered the face part of Defendant D, who was drinking, without any reason, due to drinking. Accordingly, Defendant D, under the influence of alcohol, took part of the face part of the Defendant 2, who was habitually imprising the head and blish part, etc. due to the outbreak of the Defendant Z beyond the Z, thereby causing injury, such as debrising the face part that cannot be known to the victim.

The following evidence is added to the summary of the evidence of the above crime.

1. Legal statement of the Z in its original state;

1. Statement of the police concerning the Z;

[Defendant W]

The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment are altered as follows. Defendant F, W, and W called Defendant F, I,Y, H, C, A, and AA as the above office at the office where the trade name on the second floor of the building where ATS is located at around 17:0 on August 201, in collaboration with Defendant F and G, and at the office where the trade name on the second floor of the building where CB is unknown, at around 17:0, it is impossible to find the date when Defendant F, W, and Defendant F.W called Defendant C, A, and A to the above office, and Defendant F.W continued to stop the part of the lower court’s order against Defendant C, A, and A, which are dangerous things in a state where the Defendant C, A, and A are proneed, and the part of the lower court’s order was 0 times later, and Defendant D’s 1, 1, and Y continued to see the lower part of the lower order.

As a result, Defendant D, I, Y, H, G, C, A, and A have suffered her butt trade with which the treatment period cannot be known, respectively.

As a result, the Defendants jointly carried dangerous objects and inflicted an injury on the said Defendants.

The following evidence is added to the summary of the evidence of the above crime.

1. An interrogation protocol of a suspect of a prosecution against A, C, or D;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Article 3(1) and Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891 of March 24, 2006), Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1-A. 1 of the original judgment), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1), 30 (1), (3), and (8) of the Criminal Act, Article 257(1), 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (amended by Act No. 7891 of March 24, 2006), Article 257(1), and 260(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 1-A. 1 of the original judgment), Article 3(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2080 of the Criminal Act). 80 of habitual assault.

B. Defendant W

Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 257(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by carrying a deadly weapon). Defendant 1 is Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 257(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by carrying a deadly weapon)

(d) Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 257(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendant D, W, ID);

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation (Defendant W, I, and Y);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant W, I, Y);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. Probation (Defendant W, I, Y);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant D’s motive and circumstance of each of the instant offenses, the frequency, method, and consequence of the commission of the crimes, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, criminal history, relationship with other Defendants, etc., were determined as ordered in light of all of the sentencing conditions indicated in the instant pleadings.

2. Defendant W, I, andY determined the sentence as ordered, taking into account the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the method and consequence of the commission of the crimes, the mutual relationship between the Defendants, the age, character and conduct of the Defendants, environment, and criminal records, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings of the instant case.

The acquittal portion

Defendant D’s violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (Habitual Injury by Organizations, etc.) on August 20, 208, and the summary of each charges of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc. by Organizations, etc.) in the part of Defendant W, I, andY are as follows: “In order to maintain and maintain a crime organization which is a crime organization, the Defendants injured the victims by habitually or dangerous articles, etc.” as stated in each of the charges of this part.

In this part of the facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty as the reasons mentioned above. However, each of the facts charged include the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act or the facts charged in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective injury, a deadly weapon, etc.). In light of the progress of the trial, even if punishment for each of the above facts is imposed, it is judged that there is no concern about causing a substantial disadvantage to the defendants' exercise of their right to defense. Thus, the court found the defendants guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a crime of habitual injury or a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (a collective injury, a deadly weapon, etc.) within the scope of the same facts charged without changing

For the presiding judge and judge;

Judges Cho Young-hoon

Judges Excursion Ship Owners