Whether all of the criminal organizations can be held liable for robbery in a case where some of the criminal acts of arrest, confinement, or confinement took place in the course of committing the crime of robbery while joining the criminal organization.

In a case where a part of the money was forcibly taken by taking advantage of it in the course of arresting and detaining a criminal organization upon joining the criminal organization, it is limited to the criminal liability of the person who committed the forcibly taking advantage of the money and valuables, and it cannot be deemed that all of the persons who committed the forcibly taking advantage of the money and valuables were robbery.

Articles 30, 114, and 33 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do224 Decided March 31, 1969

Defendant 1 and 21 others

Defendant, etc.

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (76 Gohap33)

The judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years and by imprisonment for 3 years for each of 3 years, and by imprisonment for 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22.

One hundred days of detention days prior to the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the sentence to the accused, etc., respectively.

However, with respect to the defendant 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, and non-indicted 5, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Articles of evidence 1 through 13, evidence 23 through 29, evidence 32, evidence 45 through 46, and evidence 49 through 53 shall be confiscated from Defendant 2, from Defendant 5, from Defendant 34, and from Defendant 1 the articles of evidence 43 through 44, respectively.

Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, etc. shall be acquitted, respectively.

The first reason for appeal by the defendant et al. is that although the defendant et al. organized a criminal organization, arrested and detained the defendant's ancestor, and committed an assault by force, and did not forcibly take money and valuables, the court below erred in misunderstanding facts that could affect the judgment by misunderstanding the facts that the court below recognized all the above criminal facts against the defendants. Second, the amount of punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant et al. is too unreasonable. The third point of the reason for appeal by the defendant 2 is that the court below did not intend to kill a person in relation to taking property, although the defendant 2 did not intend to kill a person, it is also erroneous that the court below recognized the robbery against the defendant by misunderstanding the facts and thereby committed an unlawful act that could affect the judgment.

Therefore, in full view of the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts regarding the crime of the organization of a criminal organization among the arguments of misunderstanding of facts by the defendant, etc., the court below and the court below's statement and the record of suspected facts-finding on the defendant, etc. prepared by the prosecutor, the defendant et al., other than the defendant 1 and 2, knew that he was employed by the defendant 3 and 12 through introduction or participated in the long-term exhibition, and they were gathered in the place and place of the indictment, and they were inside the early history, and they were arrested and detained by the defendant et al. according to the order of the defendant 1 and 2, it can be recognized that the defendant 1 and 2 did not act in accordance with the order of the defendant 1 and 2 to take advantage of the crime of misunderstanding of facts. Therefore, even if the defendant et al. did not have any effect on the organization of the criminal organization of the defendant, the court below's prosecutor's prosecutor's participation in the crime of misunderstanding of facts, etc., and it did not accept the above evidence.

Second, in full view of the evidence adopted by the court below after examining the defendant 1 and 2's assertion of misconception of facts as to the defendant 1 and 2's attempted robbery, injury by robbery, and robbery by robbery by the defendant 2, the defendant 1 and 2 were arrested and detained by him in order to seize the right of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of the assistance of

Third, in full view of the evidence and the evidence examined by the court below on the defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22, the above defendant et al. was gathered at the date and place of the indictment with the knowledge that he was employed in the Hoho-gun group or was participating in the Sipo-American exhibition, such as the recognition of exhibition, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant et al. conspired to take money and valuables at the time of the organization of the crime organization.

Therefore, even if part of the defendant et al. took advantage of the defendant's taking advantage of it in the process of arresting and arresting passengers, it is clear that the defendant et al. took advantage of the above defendant's taking advantage of it was an individual's criminal liability, and it cannot be deemed that all the defendant et al. committed robbery. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant et al. took advantage of the fact that the defendant et al. took part in the above defendant et al.'s taking advantage of the defendant's taking advantage of it, and that the defendant et al. took part in the taking advantage of it cannot be deemed as taking part in robbery. Furthermore, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant et al. took part in the taking advantage of the defendant et al.'s taking advantage of the defendant's taking advantage of it. Therefore, even though there is no proof that the injury by robbery against the defendant et al.

Finally, in light of various circumstances such as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means, consequence, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of the above defendant 1 and 2's appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below on the above defendant 1 and 2 is considered to be too unreasonable, and therefore there is a reason to appeal by the above defendant, etc. on this point.

Therefore, all appeals by the defendant et al. are well-grounded, and therefore the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided.

(Criminal Facts)

Defendant 1 was a person who, without being on board, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor and at least 10 months after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor in the Seoul Criminal Court on November 10, 72, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at least 73.9.9, and Defendant 2 was a person who was subject to complaint at all times. Defendant 5 was a person who was employed in the business of transporting stolen objects, etc., and who was employed in the collection of public soldiers. Defendant 11 was a person who was employed in the business of transporting stolen objects, etc., Defendant 11 was a public official's qualification; Defendant 16 was a person before and after several times, etc.; Defendant 22 was a person who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor at the Ansan Criminal Court on Sep. 10, 73, 200; Defendant 3 was a parking lot employee; Defendant 7 was a commercial person; Defendant 9, Defendant 12, Defendant 14, Defendant 12, and 15, Defendant 17.

1. Around 15:00 on December 13, 75, 15:2, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, recruited by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 2 to forcibly take advantage of their right of life at the Ldodones hotel coffee shop by violence, and decided to establish a group by combining Defendant 2 with the number of persons necessary for such efforts. Defendant 2 determined that Defendant 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 13 through Defendant 12, and that Defendant 5 and Defendant 4 invaded Defendant 6,7, 23, 8, 9, 10, 113, 14, 54, and 6, and that the rest of the Defendants’ 200 shares by taking advantage of the same group of members and their actions at around 230,000 shares.

2. Defendant 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 1, Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Defendant 2, who were in force.

3. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, at around 03:00 on the 5th floor trial room of the same 24th day, called the knife Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 7 of the knife to transfer the knife's length to the knife Nonindicted 1 and the knife, and the knife transfer of the knife's knife to the knife, so the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

(Abstract of Evidence)

The summary of the evidence of the facts constituting the crime committed by the defendant, etc. admitted by a party member is as shown in the corresponding column of the judgment below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Article 4, Article 3 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 276 (1) (Article 4 subparagraph 1, subparagraph 2 of the same Article, and subparagraph 3 of the same Article), Article 3 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, Article 276 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 3 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 276 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 4 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Criminal Act, Article 276 (2) of the Criminal Act, Article 4 of the Criminal Act, Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 342 and Article 38 of the Criminal Act, Article 45 of the Criminal Act, Article 2 of the Criminal Act, Article 1 to Article 4 of the Criminal Act, Article 5 of the Criminal Act, Article 1 to Article 2 of the Criminal Act shall apply to the defendant's punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 5 years, Article 2 of the Criminal Act.

The judgment of not guilty as to the injury by robbery against the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 and 2.

본건 공소사실 중 「피고인등은 공소외 2, 3, 4, 5, 6등과 합동하여, 동년 12.23. 22:00경 대검 1개, 수갑 1개, 무전기 6개, 포승줄 약50미터, 후라쉬 3개등을 피고인 2등이 휴대하고 3인씩 짝을 지어 조계사에 임하여 정문을 통하여 동 사찰내에 침입하여서 대한불교 조계종 총무원 사무실내에 있는 종정 공소외 1등 승려 50명을 지하실에 모아놓고 감금한 후 익일인 24일 10:00까지 사이에 피고인 1과 피고인 2는 종정 공소외 1, 총무원장 공소외 7, 교무부장 공소외 8, 재무부장 공소외 9, 총무부장 공소외 10, 동 승려 20명을 포승줄로 모두 묶어 5층 승려 숙소 7개 방실에 3명씩 감금하고 피고인 1과 피고인 2는 방마다 다니면서 발과 주먹으로 동 승려들을 마구 때리고, 피고인 18은 종정 공소외 1, 재무부장 공소외 9, 총무국장 공소외 11, 종정사서 공소외 12, 사회국장 공소외 13등을, 피고인 4는 종정사서 공소외 12 등을, 피고인 12는 사회국장 공소외 13을, 피고인 5는 교무부장 공소외 8, 재정국장 공소외 14, 총무국장 공소외 11, 사회국장 공소외 13 등을, 피고인 15는 재무부장 공소외 9, 종정사서 공소외 12등을, 피고인 8은 교무부장 공소외 8, 재무부장 공소외 9, 총무부장 공소외 10, 사회부장 공소외 16, 조사과장 공소외 17, 종정사서 공소외 12등을, 피고인 14는 사무국장 공소외 18, 조사과장 공소외 17들을, 피고인 19는 교무부장 공소외 8, 조사과장 공소외 17, 종정사서 공소외 12 등을, 피고인 7은 재정국장 공소외 14, 총무국장 공소외 10, 조사과장 공소외 17, 사회국장 공소외 19 등을, 피고인 16은 총무국장 공소외 11등을, 피고인 22는 재정국장 공소외 14등을, 피고인 11은 교무부장 공소외 8, 재정국장 공소외 14, 총무국장 공소외 11, 종정사서 공소외 12, 사회부장 공소외 20, 사회국장 공소외 13등을, 피고인 17은 교무부장 공소외 8, 조사과장 공소외 17, 종정사서 공소외 12등을, 피고인 20은 교무부장 공소외 8, 재정국장 공소외 14, 조사과장 공소외 17, 사회부장 공소외 20등을, 피고인 9는 재정국장 공소외 14, 재무부장 공소외 9, 총무국장 공소외 11, 종정사서 공소외 12, 사회국장 공소외 13등을, 피고인 13은 재정국장 공소외 14등을, 피고인 3은 교무부장 공소외 8, 재무부장 공소외 9, 총무부장 공소외 21, 총무국장 공소외 11, 사회부장 공소외 20, 종정사서 공소외 12, 사회국장 공소외 19등에게 각 달려들어 동인들의 전신을 교대로 주먹과 발로 마구 때리고 피고인 21, 6, 10, 공소외 3, 4, 5, 6과 같이 상호 교대로 동인들을 도망하지 못하도록 감시하면서 동인들의 주머니를 모두 뒤져서 시계 11개, 만년필 3개, 카메라 1개, 라디오 2대, 녹음기 1대, 조계사 예금통장 예금액면 15만원 1매, 연금 도합 금 350,500원 총 기금 약100만원 상당을 뺏어서 이를 강취하고」 하는 부분에 대하여 살피건대, 전시 피고인등의 항소이유에 대한 판단에서 살펴본 바와 같이 위 피고인등이 본건 체포감금목적의 범죄단체조직가입시 금품강취를 공모하였다거나(종권은 재물이 아니므로 피고인등이 종권탈취목적으로 범죄단체를 조직하였다 하더하도 이로써 곧 피고인등에게 강도의 목적이 있었다고 할 수는 없다) 위 피고인등 각자가 위 범죄단체의 목적 수행과정에 편승하여 개별적으로 금품을 강취하였다고 인정할 아무런 증거가 없다. 따라서 위 피고인등에 대한 강도상해의 점은 그 증명이 없음에 귀착되어 형사소송법 제325조 후단 을 적용하여 무죄를 선고하는 것이다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)