Whether a person who directs the activities of the organization behind the criminal organization, or directs and leads the members of the horse group, falls under “the leader” under Article 4 subparag. 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (affirmative)

The term "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and leads the activities of an organization by the head of the head of a criminal organization, not directly in charge of the command of the members in the front of the criminal organization, and a person who directs all activities of the organization in the front of the criminal organization, or directs activities of the organization through the executive officer who directly directs and leads the members of the end group in the front of the criminal organization without directly taking charge of the command and command of the members of the end group in the front of the crime

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Do-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Seo Dong-hun et al.

Gwangju High Court Decision 91No809 delivered on November 22, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The number of detention days after an appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Each of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his/her defense counsel (state ships, private ships) shall be examined as well.

First, as to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

1. Examining the records, the court below's fact-finding in this part cannot be said to be contrary to the rules of evidence, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the organization of crime organizations.

2. According to the records, the defendant denies this part of the crime in this case, but the defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had followed the defendant at the prosecutor's office. The defendant's 1st century, "The defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he had been involved in the crime," and the defendant was found to have been aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had been involved in the crime at the prosecutor's office." The above 4th prosecutor's office did not gather the defendant at a certain place, but it was true that the defendant, the defendant, and the 1st prosecutor's office's office's testimony, including the defendant's 1st prosecutor's office's 1983, and the defendant's 1st prosecutor's office's 2nd officer's 2nd officer's 2nd officer's 2nd officer's 1nd officer's 2nd officer's 2nd officer's 3nd officer's 2nd officer's 2nd officer's s s.

3. The term "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and leads the activities of the organization as the head of the head of the organization of the crime concerned, and it does not directly take charge of the command of the members in the front of the organization concerned, and the person who directs the activities of the organization in the front of the organization in the front of the crime organization concerned without directly direct command and command the terminal members of the organization concerned or directly directs the terminal members of the organization in the front of the organization concerned without command, command the terminal members, and directs the activities of the organization through the intermediary executives leading the terminal members (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2695 delivered on February 26, 191).

4. According to the records, it cannot be said that the fact is the fact that, as the police officer in charge of violence in the Riri Police Station, the most virtue type, Kim Jong-chul, the best rule, and Park Jong-gu money, the police officer stated that they were not included in the lighting team of the steering staff of the "Gu Jeon Jong-chul," in the first instance court or the court of the court below, which is known by the police, but even if so, this cannot be an obstacle to the fact-finding of the court below. Further, it does not constitute a violation of the rules of evidence on the ground that the court below's failure to testify such testimony does not violate the rules of evidence.

An employee of the end group of a criminal organization may not know who is actually two items under the command and command of the middle executive officer, and even if he knows of his history, he may see that the fact would not be easily inferred, and even if he knows that even if he knows, he would not easily see the fact, it can be inferred that he could not easily see the fact. In a case where the two titles of the criminal organization are not seen in the front part, but directs the organization through the middle executive officer in the behind, it may not be attached to the assistant group of the police organization's officers, so in a case where he directs the organization through the middle executive officer, it may not be found that the court below's approval of this part of the criminal facts is illegal. In light of these circumstances, it cannot be said that the court below's approval of this part of the criminal facts by taking account of the evidence cited by the court below without obtaining these evidence.

Therefore, there is no reason to dispute from the opposite position.

Point 2 (Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes)

1. In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance partially accepted by the court below, this part of the court below's fact-finding is just and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles as to public conflict.

2. According to the records, the defendant established the non-indicted 1 corporation and operated the company with the thickness of the non-indicted 3 and the non-indicted 2, the general manager, as the representative director of the non-indicted 1 corporation, until January 20, 1989, and the non-indicted 3 received the management expenses from the members of the high-light fishing village, and around that time, the non-indicted 3 retired from office and the non-indicted 2 received the fishery management expenses from the fishermen from that time. However, according to the evidence cited by the court below, even if the collection of management expenses was changed from the non-indicted 3 to the non-indicted 2, it seems that this is merely a replacement of the internal person under the defendant's direction, so the judgment below is just and acceptable.

Therefore, there is no reason to challenge the opposing position.

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)