The establishment of co-principal cases where a person who intends to realize the criminal intent of an accomplice is aware of the intention of the accomplice's, and the criminal intent is established.

In order to establish a joint principal offender, it does not necessarily require a prior conspiracy between the accomplices, and there is a conspiracy if the intent to realize the joint principal offender through mutual cooperation with the secret, and as long as there is a conspiracy, it does not necessarily require to share the commission of each crime, and as long as there is a conspiracy, it cannot be exempted from the liability of the accomplice even if one of the joint co-defendant who has conspired with the rape, so if the other criminal defendant kills his/her dependent, and then the former kills his/her dependent, while the other criminal defendant is raped by the co-defendant, and then the latter kills the victim by combining the victim of rape and reporting his/her will, the latter cannot be exempted from the liability of joint principal offender for the series of crimes after rape.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4288 Form 261 Delivered on November 29, 1955

Defendant 1 and one other

Attorney Kim Sang-hoon, and Sdong-young, the defendant et al. defense

High Court Decision 81 High Court Decision 725-1, 725-2 delivered on June 28, 1982

All appeals are dismissed.

(1) Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal and their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal No. 1 and Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the records, each of the defendants' statements at the military prosecutor's office and the police and the statements at the court of first instance, there is no clear evidence that the defendants made a false statement due to the advice or intimidation by the military prosecutor's office or the police, and there is no clear evidence that the defendants made a false statement due to their lack of discretion, and in particular, there is no reason to suspect that the contents of each statement were made under the conditions which are not reliable because they were made under the conditions which are not reliable. Therefore, each of the above statements is voluntary, and it can be sufficiently recognized the facts constituting the defendants' facts stated in the judgment of the court of first instance, taking into account each of the above statements and other evidence cited in the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, so it cannot be said that there

(2) Defendant 2’s attorney’s second ground of appeal is examined.

In order to establish a joint principal offender, prior conspiracy is not necessarily required to be made between the accomplices, and there is a conspiracy with the intent to realize the joint principal offender through mutual agreement, and as long as there is a conspiracy, it is not necessarily required to share the commission of each crime, and it is not always possible to be exempted from the responsibility of the accomplice even if the court of first instance affirmed the network. According to the facts acknowledged by the court of first instance, Defendant 2, while rape with Defendant 1 after gathering rape with Defendant 1, can not escape from the liability of the accomplice. According to the court of first instance, the court below's decision that held that Defendant 2 did not have any unlawful act of misunderstanding the victim 1 who was unable to resist due to rape with the above rape, murdering Defendant 2, and reporting Defendant 2 to the end of rape, and did not have any unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the above crime of murder with the victim's 1, who did not have been able to escape from the crime of rape with the victim's stroke, thereby combining it with the above evidence.

(3) Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 4 and Defendant 2’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the overall circumstances such as the motive, appearance, and gravity of the result of the instant crime, especially murder, which is recognized by the record, the remaining life of two persons including those of 10 months after the birth, the damage assessment of the victims, the impact of the crime on the society, etc., the Defendants’ criminal liability is extremely heavy, and the excess of the judgment of the first instance court maintained by the judgment of the court below is inevitable, and the party members may not be allowed to take the action. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice)