Whether the attempted abandonment of a preliminary crime is established

There may be no attempted abandonment in reserve.

Articles 26 and 28 of the Criminal Act

66Do152 delivered on April 21, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 3691 delivered on April 21, 196) Decision 66Do617 delivered on July 12, 1966 (Supreme Court Decision 3686 delivered on July 12, 196, Article 26 (2) of the Criminal Act)

Defendant 1 and nine others

Defendant 1, Hague, Defendant 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 444,76 High Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 76 High Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 3301 High Court Decision 75 High Court Decision 75 High

The part against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 8 in each judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 8 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and suspension of qualifications for a year.

During the detention days before rendering a judgment in the original instance, the number of defendants 1 and 2 shall be 25 days, 155 days for defendants 3, 5 days for defendants 5, 80 days for defendants 8, and 65 days for defendants 8 shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Pronouncement of a sentence against the defendant 9 shall be suspended.

From Defendant 1, 2, one set, one set of a conscientious declaration, one set of a steel plate (No. 1 through 4), and one set of a plate (No. 6,7) seized by the head of the Seoul Regional Prosecutors' Office, the head of the Seoul Regional Prosecutors' Office and the head of the Seoul Regional Prosecutors' Office and the head of the 75 voltage and 4185, among seized articles, shall be confiscated from Defendant 8, from Defendant 8, from among those seized articles, from Defendant 1, and 2, from Defendant 1, 1, 1, 3, and one copy (No. 6,7) from Defendant 5.

The appeal by the defendant 4, 6, and 7 and the prosecutor's appeal by the defendant 10 are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and the defense counsel of Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 8, the first instance court erred by mistake of facts and violation of law that could affect the judgment, and second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of the sentence imposed by the Defendants is too inappropriate. The prosecutor's grounds for appeal against Defendant 10 is sufficient to prove the facts charged by the court below, and the court below erred by mistake of facts that could affect the judgment. Second, the court below erred by law that the court below's preliminary attempted suspension, even though Defendant 9 exempted Defendant 1 from punishment due to attempted suspension, but the preliminary attempted suspension could not be established, and the decision of the court below that the preliminary suspension attempted suspension could not be established. Third, the judgment of the court below is unfair because it is too unfford that the sentence imposed by Defendant 1,2,3,4,5,6,77, and8 was sentenced to punishment.

Therefore, we first examine the grounds for appeal concerning Defendant 8 and the prosecutor’s attempted suspension, and since the preliminary complaint cannot be established, Defendant 8’s grounds for appeal concerning this cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below which exempted Defendant 9 from punishment on the ground that Defendant 9’s act was the attempted suspension of preliminary suspension, shall not be reversed as a violation of the law that may affect the judgment, and thus, the

Then, in light of the records, the prosecutor's grounds for appeal for mistake of facts against the defendant 10 were examined. In light of the records, the prosecutor's overall examination of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, and since the facts charged against the defendant are insufficient to prove, the prosecutor's appeal against the defendant is without merit and criticism.

In addition, as to Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 5, the case was concurrent with each of the cases in which the party members 76No591, 1593, and 1613 against the said Defendants were concurrent with each other. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below against the said Defendants became two parts of the judgment of the court below, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and thus, each of the judgment of the court below against the said Defendants is reversed.

Finally, examining the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing against the Defendants 4, 6, 7, and 8 by the prosecutor as well as the grounds for appeal on unfair sentencing against the said Defendants, in detail, the court below did not consider the circumstances in which the court below lawfully investigated the conditions for sentencing, such as the motive, means, consequence, degree of damage, age, character and conduct of the said Defendants, environment, and circumstances after the crime. Even in light of the circumstances asserted by the said Defendants and the prosecutor, the court below did not consider that the amount of the sentence against the said Defendants is inappropriate, and that the amount of the sentence against the said Defendants is too heavy or less, and as regards Defendant 8, the court below's appeal against the said Defendants 4, 6, 7, and the prosecutor's appeal against the said Defendants cannot be accepted, and there are grounds for appeal against the said Defendants. Therefore, the judgment below against the said Defendant cannot be reversed.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 8 among the judgments of the court below shall be reversed, and the members shall be decided again, and all of the appeals against Defendant 4, 6, and 7 and the prosecutor's appeal against the said Defendants and 10 shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the same Act

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, and 8, which are acknowledged as a party member, and the summary of evidence, are as stated in the corresponding column of each judgment of the court below, and therefore, all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Defendant 1, 2, 5, 9, and 8’s holding that Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 5’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above provisions shall be included in the scope of punishment; Defendant 1, 3, and 4(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Defendant 3’s failure to report the change of residence under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is so-called, 5’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above provisions; Defendant 1, 4, 5’s imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above provisions of Article 7 of the Criminal Act; Defendant 2, 7, 5’s order of seizure and emergency measures for national security and public protection (hereinafter “emergency measures”) shall be included in the first five-year sentence; and Defendant 1,5’s order of seizure and emergency measures shall be included in the first five-year imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above provisions of Article 9(7) and (2) of the Criminal Act; and Defendant 3,5’s order of provisional measures shall be included in the first five-year sentence.

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

Judges Jeon Byung-chul (Presiding Judge)