[1] The meaning of "two or more persons jointly" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[2] In a case where the Defendants were indicted for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) by assaulting the victims, the case reversing the judgment of the first instance court that found the Defendants guilty ex officio and dismissing the prosecution, even though the victims expressed their intention not to punish the Defendants prior to the prosecution, unless there is evidence to acknowledge the joint relationship between the Defendants, it cannot be punished as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and only the establishment of the crime of assault was established

[1] Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the so-called "two or more co-offenders exist among several persons," and that there are cases where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it to commit the crime.

[2] In a case where the defendants were prosecuted for violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) by assaulting the victims, the court of first instance and the investigative agency statements of the victims who correspond to the facts charged are hard to believe in light of all circumstances, and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are insufficient to recognize that the victims were assaulting the victims, so the defendants cannot be punished as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and the crime of assault cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intent of the victims, and the victims cannot be prosecuted against the clearly expressed intent of the victims, and the prosecution against the defendants is invalid in violation of the provisions of the Act, and thus the prosecution procedure against the defendants is reversed ex officio or dismissed on the ground that there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court of first instance, which convicted the victims with excessive indictment.

[1] Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act / [2] Article 260(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 and (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 327 Subparag. 2, 361-4(1), and 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do4305 delivered on February 25, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 896)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

Freeboard Kim & one other

Attorney Lee Yong-hoon

Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2011 High Court Decision 1456 decided February 9, 2012

The judgment of the first instance is reversed.

All prosecutions against the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of the facts charged and judgment of the first instance court

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant 1, around 15:00 on March 16, 201, at around 15:0, dealt with the issue of the settlement of rent between Nonindicted Party 2 (year 50) and the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s husband Nonindicted Party 1, the tenant of the shop leased by himself before the “○○○○ fever” (number omitted) and Defendant 1: (a) took the breath of the victim Nonindicted Party 3 (year 41) together with Nonindicted Party 2 in hand, and took the breath of the dub of the victim Nonindicted Party 3 (year 41) one time in hand; (b) Defendant 2, who was Defendant 1’s son, took the breath of the victim Nonindicted Party 2’s hair and knick, and took the dub of the victim Nonindicted Party 3’s knish by hand.

Accordingly, the Defendants jointly assaulted victims.

B. First Instance Judgment

The first instance court convicted all of the facts charged of this case by applying Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act.

2. Summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2

Defendant 2 only took the clothes of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 in order to prevent Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 from assaulting Defendant 1, and did not assault Nonindicted 2 and 3 in collaboration with Defendant 1, as in the facts charged in the instant case.

3. Judgment of the court below

A. On March 12, 2012, Defendant 1 was served with the notification of the receipt of the trial record and the notification of the appointment of a public defender by this court on March 12, 2012, and did not state the grounds for appeal within 20 days from the notification. While Defendant 1 did not state the grounds for appeal in the petition of appeal, among the judgment of the first instance, the part on Defendant 1 in the judgment of the court of first instance as to Defendant 1 did not state the grounds for appeal. As such, Defendant 2’s grounds for ex officio as stated

B. (1) Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that the phrase “two or more persons jointly share” requires that there exists so-called co-offenders relationship among them, and that there is a case where several persons are aware of another person’s crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it to commit the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000, etc.).

(2) 이 사건에서 피고인들이 ‘공동하여’ 피해자들을 폭행하였는지 살피건대, 이에 부합하는 직접증거로는 공소외 2, 3의 제1심법정 및 수사기관에서의 각 진술이 있으나, 제1심과 당심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 ① 공소외 2와 공소외 3은 수사기관 및 제1심법정에서 ‘자신은 주먹으로 피고인들을 폭행한 적이 없다’는 취지로 각 진술하였으나, 공소외 2의 아내인 공소외 1은 수사기관에서 ‘ 공소외 2가 주먹으로 누군지는 모르겠으나 피고인들을 때렸다. 공소외 3도 피고인 2를 주먹으로 때렸다’는 취지로 진술한 점, ② 공소외 3은 제1심법정에서 ‘ 피고인 2가 공소외 2의 머리와 오른쪽 손목을 잡아 비틀고, 주먹으로 얼굴과 가슴 부위를 수차례 때리는 것을 보았다’는 취지로 진술하였으나, 공소외 2는 제1심법정에서 ‘ 피고인 2에게 머리와 손목을 잡아 비틀리고 얼굴과 가슴을 주먹으로 맞은 것은 공소외 3이 현장에 도착하기 전이다’는 취지로 진술한 점, ③ 공소외 2는 수사기관에서는 ‘ 피고인 1이 자신을 때리기 위해 드라이버를 가지고 나왔고, 피고인 2는 길에 떨어져 있던 시멘트 조각을 들었다’는 취지로 진술하였다가, 제1심법정에서는 ‘ 피고인 1이 시멘트 조각을 집어 들었고, 피고인 2가 드라이버를 가지고 나왔다’는 취지로 진술을 번복하였는데, 이와 달리 공소외 3은 제1심법정에서 ‘드라이버를 집어 든 사람은 피고인 1이고, 시멘트 조각을 집어 든 사람은 피고인 2다’는 취지로 진술하였고, 공소외 4는 당심법정에서 ‘피고인들이 드라이버나 시멘트 덩어리를 집어든 적이 없다’는 취지로 진술한 점, ④ 공소외 4는 당심법정에서 “자신이 처음 목격했을 때, 피고인 2는 ‘ ○○○○열쇠’ 점포 밖에서 공소외 2가 피고인 1에게 달려들지 못하도록 공소외 2의 옷만 붙잡고 있었고, 피고인 2가 손으로 공소외 2의 머리와 손목을 잡아 비틀거나 주먹으로 공소외 2의 얼굴과 가슴을 때리는 장면을 보지 못했다. 그 후 공소외 3이 공소외 2에 가세하여 피고인 1에게 폭언과 폭행을 하자, 피고인 2는 이를 막기 위해 양손으로 공소외 2와 공소외 3의 옷을 붙잡고 있었다. 피고인 2는 양손으로 공소외 2, 3을 붙잡고 있느라 누구를 때릴 수 없었고, 공소외 2와 공소외 3에게 계속 맞으면서 있었다.”는 취지로 진술하였는바, 위 진술 내용에 의하면 적어도 공소외 4가 목격한 이후에는 피고인 2가 피고인 1의 범행을 인식하고 이를 이용하여 피해자들을 폭행하였다고 보기 어려운 점, ⑤ 공소외 1은 이 사건 당일 수사기관에서 “피고인들과 공소외 2가 ‘ ○○○○열쇠’ 점포 안에서 서로 멱살을 잡고 실랑이를 하다가, 밖으로 나와서도 서로 실랑이를 하였는데, 피고인 2가 자신에게 욕을 하자 공소외 3이 합류하여 같이 싸웠다.”는 취지로 진술하면서도, 정작 피고인들이 공소외 2를 어떻게 때렸냐는 질문에는 ‘잘 모르겠다’는 취지로 진술하였고, 피고인들이 공소외 3을 어떻게 폭행하였냐는 질문에도 ‘서로 붙어서 싸우는데 어떻게 누가 때리고 했는지 알겠는가. 잘 모르겠다’는 취지로 진술하였는바, 공소외 1로서는 피고인들이 남편인 공소외 2에게 어떤 위해를 가하는지를 가장 주의 깊게 지켜보았을 것임에도 공소외 1이 이에 대하여 제대로 진술하지 못한 것(더구나 공소외 1은 위에서 언급한 바와 같이 공소외 2와 공소외 3이 피고인들 측에 가한 폭행에 대해서는 목격한 대로 진술한 바 있다)은 실제로 피고인들이 공소외 2와 공소외 3의 공동폭행에 소극적으로 저항하는 수준에 그쳤던 것이 아닌가 하는 강한 의구심을 떨쳐 버릴 수 없게 하는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 공소외 2, 3의 제1심법정 및 수사기관에서의 각 진술은 이를 그대로 믿기 어렵고, 검사가 제출한 나머지 증거들만으로는 피고인들이 ‘공동하여’ 피해자들을 폭행한 것이라고 인정하기에 부족하며, 달리 이와 같이 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

(3) Therefore, insofar as there is no evidence to acknowledge joint relations among the Defendants, the Defendants cannot be punished as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint assault) and only the establishment of the crime of assault can be at issue. ex officio, the crime of homicide and assault is a crime falling under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, and cannot be prosecuted against the victim’s express intent under Article 260(3) of the Criminal Act. According to each protocol of the police interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 2 and 3, it can be acknowledged that Nonindicted 2 and 3 explicitly expressed their intention not to punish the Defendants on March 16, 201, which is prior to the prosecution of this case, prior to the prosecution of this case, since the prosecution of this case against the Defendants constitutes a crime of violation of the provisions of the Act and thus, it should have been dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Nevertheless, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the facts charged against the Defendants, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged against the Defendants is as shown in Article 1-A-B of the Criminal Procedure Act. The prosecution of this case against the Defendants constitutes a case where the prosecution procedure against the Defendants is null and void in violation of the provisions of law on the grounds as seen in Article 3-2(b) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Thus, all of the prosecution of this case against the Defendants are dismissed in accordance with Article 327

Judges Kim fixed-soo (Presiding Judge)