The meaning of "two or more persons jointly" in the latter part of Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act

The phrase "two or more persons jointly" in the latter part of Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Code requires a share of the act of enforcement as a subjective requirement, and there is a cooperative relationship between time and place in the act of enforcement.

Article 331(2) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292 Form 952 Delivered on February 29, 1960

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Yoon Jae-sik et al.

Busan High Court Decision 88No233 delivered on June 2, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred days of detention after an appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by defense counsel and public defender are examined.

Article 331 (2) (latter part) of the Criminal Code provides that "two or more persons shall jointly act as a subjective element, and it is required that there is a cooperative relationship at time or at a place as an objective requirement." However, compared with the evidences of the first instance court maintained by the court below, the defendant conspireds with the non-indicted 1 and 2 to share the act of execution with the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, and has shared the act of execution by waiting in the vehicle driven by the defendant in the vicinity of the above non-indicted 1's place of the act of larceny. However, although the above non-indicted 1 was found to have left the place of the act of theft in the course of physical coloring the object of the crime, it seems that there was a time and place of the crime, and therefore, it seems that there was a deviation from the cooperative relationship with the defendant, so the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty by applying Article 5-4 (1) of the Aggravated Punishment Act and Article 331 of the Criminal Code is justified and there is no violation of rules of evidence or misunderstanding.

In addition, in this case where a sentence of less than ten years of imprisonment is imposed, the assertion of unfair sentencing may not be a legitimate ground for appeal.

All arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)