The establishment of a co-principal and a co-principal with the intention of an impliedis

In order to establish a joint principal offender, there is no need to be a prior conspiracy between accomplices, and there is a conspiracy if the intent to realize the joint principal offender through mutual cooperation with secret and silent, and as long as there is such a contact, there is no need to share the charge of each crime.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do2193 Decided January 17, 1978, 82Do1818 Decided October 26, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 85Do2728 Decided August 19, 1986, 87Do1240 Decided October 13, 1987

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants

Attorney Yang Sung-dong (Defendant 1, 2, and 3) (Attorney Yang Sung-dong, Counsel for defendant 4)

Gwangju High Court Decision 87No378 delivered on August 26, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 40 days each included in the original sentence against the Defendants.

Defendant 1, 2, and 3 and their state appointed defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining the evidence revealed by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the above Defendants guilty of the above Defendants' death and injury is justified, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence, and joint principal offenders do not necessarily have a prior conspiracy among accomplices, and there is a conspiracy to realize joint offenders' intent to cooperate with cancer, and as long as there is such a communication, there is no need to share the victim's attempt to commit each crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 82Do1818, Oct. 26, 1982). According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, it is hard to find out that the above Defendants 1, 2, and 3 did not have any error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as stated in the judgment of the court below as to the above Defendants 1 and 1, as well as the victim's non-indicted 1, 2, and 3, as the victim's non-indicted 1 and the victim's non-indicted 2, as the above victim's 1 and the victim's 3.

In addition, in this case where a sentence of less than 10 years of imprisonment is imposed, the sentencing inappropriate cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. There are no grounds for appeal.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 4 and his defense counsel are examined together. Examining the evidence cited by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of the facts constituting an offense against the Defendant is just and acceptable, and it cannot be deemed that there is no error of law by misapprehending the rules of evidence in the process of determining the evidence and selecting the evidence. The argument also has no reason.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal is to be included in the principal sentence against the Defendants.

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)