Cases of not recognizing the accomplice relation of the act of assault under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

For the purpose of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, the term “two or more persons jointly commit a crime by recognizing and using other persons’ act at the same time and at the same place.” Therefore, if the Defendant, who performed a fighting with the victim A and carried out a fighting with the victim B and the Defendant’s wife C and the Defendant, committed a joint crime against the said Defendant and C by recognizing the relation with the Defendant and his accomplice B, etc., once he completed the fighting with the victim A and the Defendant’s wife C and the aforementioned wife C, the Defendant did not go against the fighting, and rather, if the Defendant actively met his fighting, the Defendant did not take measures to commit a crime against the Defendant’s act of killing the fat, and fating the fat, regardless of whether he was liable for the crime.

Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Do163 delivered on March 10, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 81Do176 delivered on June 23, 1981

Defendant

Attorney Shin Shin-chul

Suwon District Court Decision 80No2077 delivered on May 29, 1981

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

Defendant’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal

Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that the term "two or more persons jointly commit the crime" requires that the two or more persons have co-offender relations, and it is required that they have committed the crime by recognizing and using another person's criminal act on the same opportunity at the same place (see Supreme Court Decision 70Do163, Mar. 10, 1970). According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, citing the reasoning of the judgment, the court below acknowledged that the defendant jointly with the co-defendant and the non-indicted, who is the wife of the judgment of the court of first instance, has breathddd with the breath of the victim 1, who is the wife of the victim, and the co-defendant of the court below recognized the fact that the defendant committed the violence, such as taking the head of the victim 2 by delivery to the non-indicted, and applied Article 2 (2) and Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act to the defendant.

However, even according to the evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, even if the defendant contests with the victim 1, and franchising him, it is recognized that the defendant committed the above crime in collaboration with the co-defendant of the court below and the non-indicted. However, there is only the above victim's statement in the court of first instance. Rather, in each protocol of examination of the above victims by the public prosecutor, the defendant and the victim 1 came to a fighting with the defendant's wife co-defendant and the non-indicted and the victim 1's wife, and the co-defendant of the court of first instance, etc. committed the same violence as the victim 2, and the defendant did not go through this, and rather, they were fighting with them, and it is hard to believe that the above victims' statement was consistent with the above facts.

Therefore, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant committed the above violence against the victim 1 by recognizing the accomplice relation between the defendant and the co-defendant of the court below and the non-indicted person, who is his wife, together with him, and committed the above violence against the victim 2. However, the judgment of the value of evidence that the court below decided as above cannot be said to have been reversed and the facts acknowledged as illegal without any evidence.

Ultimately, the argument is reasonable, and the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case to be tried again is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)