(a) The nature of participation in a criminal act by a member of a violent crime and joining a violent crime organization;

B. Whether the defendant's entire conviction was reversed and the judgment of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment

A. The crime of violation of Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established by joining an already organized violent crime organization. However, the Defendant cannot be held liable for committing a crime of joining a violent crime organization immediately in addition to the Defendant’s liability for committing a crime of homicide, etc. solely on the ground that the Defendant participated in and committed a crime such as murder by a member of a violent crime organization.

B. In the case where the court of first instance reversed the prosecutor's appeal as to the non-guilty portion under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act that the court of first instance sentenced the defendant not guilty of the facts charged under Article 38 of the same Act, and found the defendant guilty only for the remaining facts charged under subparagraph (A) and rendered a new judgment, the court of first instance did not contain any indication that the prosecutor's appeal as to the non-guilty portion is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the same Act, but if the court of first instance has a concurrent relation with the crime under Article 37 of the same Act and the crime under Article 38 of the same Act, and has committed a single sentence by applying Article 38 of the same Act, it shall be deemed that the judgment of the court of first instance was reversed

(a) Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

Defendant 1 and eight others

The Defendants (1) through (7) and the Prosecutor (8), (9) and the Defendants

Attorney Jeong Tae-won, Jeong-won, Cho Jong-sung, Maz.

Gwangju High Court Decision 83No478 delivered on August 25, 1983

All appeals are dismissed.

As to the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, 50 days of pre-trial detention after the appeal shall be included in the corresponding principal sentence.

(1) Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

A. As to the part on Defendant 8

The crime of violation of Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is established not only when members of the organization meet from the beginning but also when they join the already organized organization. However, the court below found Defendant 8 not guilty of the facts charged on the sole basis of the following facts: Defendant 8 did not have to take the responsibility for joining the organization of violence crime on November 3, 1982, 19:00; Defendant 6 did not have to take part in the conspiracy of murder and bodily injury to the members of the organization of violence crime of this case; and it did not have any evidence to deem that he participated in the formation of the organization of the above violence crime of this case or participated in the action of the organization; even if he did not take part in the crime of murder or bodily injury to the organization, he did not have to take part in the crime of joining the organization of violence crime of this case; the court below found Defendant 8 not guilty of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to joining the organization of violence crime of this case.

B. As to the part on Defendant 9, examining the evidence cited by the court of first instance as cited by the court below in light of the records, it shall not be deemed that Defendant 9 provided or aided and abetted Co-Defendant 9 to carry with him the intent to have co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendant co-defendants in the criminal act. However, the court below's decision that acquitted Defendant 9 on the ground that the co-defendant co-defendant was not guilty on the ground that he did not know that the co-defendant did not have any co-defendant co-defendant's co-defendant co-defendant, like the Defendant, and did not return it to the court of first instance, and there is no other evidence

(2) The grounds of appeal by the remaining Defendants except Defendant 8 and 9, and each of the grounds of appeal by the defense counsel of Defendant 1, Defendant 5, 6, and 7, and the defense counsel of the remaining Defendants except Defendant 1 are examined together. Examining the records by comparing the judgment of the court below and the first instance court's judgment cited, the court below's decision that recognized each of the facts constituting the crime against the Defendants (excluding Defendant 8 and 9) is just, and there is no error of law or misunderstanding of legal principles as to misconception of facts contrary to the rules of evidence, such as theory of lawsuit, and the examination protocol prepared by the prosecutor with respect to Defendant 2 is not established in the court of first instance and its contents are not discovered, and it is not clear that the above statement has no voluntariness or it is not reliable. Accordingly, the court below's judgment and the first instance court's decision are reversed and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of the judgment of the first instance court's judgment as to the facts charged with attempted murder of Article 6 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, regarding the assertion of unfair sentencing, the court below's determination of the punishment against Defendant 1, 2, and 4 cannot be deemed to be unfair in light of the circumstances indicated in the records, including the background, mode, result, and all other circumstances. In the case of this case where the defendant 1, 2, and 4 was sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 10 years at the court below, it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal under the Criminal Procedure Act. All arguments are without merit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act and Article 24 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings to the inclusion of detention days after the appeal.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young