Defendant 1 and 20 others

Maximum Freeboard

Attorney Kim Jong-sung et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1, 16, 17, 18, and 19 shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months, by imprisonment for two years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for three years, by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for four years, by imprisonment for four years and six months; and by imprisonment for four years and six months, by imprisonment for one year and six months, respectively.

Defendant 1, 225 days in detention before the pronouncement of this judgment was made against Defendant 2, 205 days in relation to Defendant 3, 183 days in relation to Defendant 4, and 178 days in relation to Defendant 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 91 days in relation to Defendant 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, and 87 days in relation to Defendant 19, respectively.

However, for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, the execution of each of the above sentence against Defendant 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 19 shall be suspended.

Defendant 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 19 shall be ordered to provide community service and be put on probation for 20 hours each.

Defendant 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, and 21 criminal records

. The defendant 2 is a person who was sentenced to imprisonment on August 206. 1 with prison labor for 2. The above 1 year and 2. The imprisonment with prison labor for 3 years and 4 years, which was declared by the competent court for 5 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 1 years and 2 years, and Defendant 4 was sentenced to a suspended sentence for 10 years at the Daejeon High Court for 14 May 21, 1993, and the suspended sentence for 1 year and 6 months at the same time for 3 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 1 years and 4 years at the same court for 9 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 1 years and 5 years at the same time for 3 years and the same suspended sentence for 2 years and 5 years at the same court for 9 years and sentenced to a suspended sentence for 2 years and 3 years at the same time during the same suspended sentence for 2 years and

E. Composition of Criminal Organizations by Defendants

○ Criminal Organization called 'Mara Madara'

around May 1986, Nonindicted 5: (a) determined the division of duties of Nonindicted 6, etc. for the purpose of securing the jobs of the head of business of the entertainment establishment in North Korea, such as the head of the entertainment business establishment in North Korea, a manager, etc., and taking the actual management rights over them; (b) for the purpose of taking part in this right, Nonindicted 6, etc. into command, Nonindicted 7, and 8, etc.; (c) determined the code of conduct, such as: (d) 90 degree of personnel to the punishment, (e) the order of worship, (e) the order of worship, (e) the order of worship, (e) the order of worship, and (e) the order of worship, and (e) the order of good faith among the assistants, (e) the establishment of a strict order of deceptiveism, and (e) interfere with the business of the entertainment business establishment in North Korea; (e) the attendance of competition force, and (e) the exercise of influence by using dangerous weapons, and (e) the organization of Defendant 162, Defendant 162, and 15.2.

○ An organization of crime called 'Maura'

around May 1986, Nonindicted 9: (a) determined the division of duties of Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11 and 12, with the aim of securing the jobs of the head of the business of the entertainment establishment in North Korea, such as the head of the business office of the entertainment establishment in North Korea, a manager, etc., and taking over these rights; (b) determined the code of conduct, such as: (c) determined the division of duties to the head of the command unit, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 11 and 12, etc.; and (d) determined the code of conduct, such as: (d) under the direction of the captain and the order of the vessel; (e) determined the 90-day personnel and the order of the vessel owner; (e) 10-day personnel and the order of the vessel owner; and (e) established the strict order of deceptive measures; (e) established the order of the vessel owner; (e) obstructed the operation of the entertainment establishment in North Korea; and (e) in order to control the competition force; and (e) constituted Defendant 14) Defendant 10-party 17.

1. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (No. 2007 high-priced217) against Defendant 3;

Defendant 3, along with Nonindicted 13, who is the same organization as “Parasm wave,” was in around 02:18 on July 17, 2006, and around 02:13, the victim Lee ○○ (38 years of age) was in the main place of “glar,” in which he works as an employee,” Nonindicted 13 opened an elevator door, and instructed the victim to read “g, glar, glar, glar, glar,” and glard the victim into one floor after burning the elevator. Defendant 3 maintained the victim’s right-hand part of the victim’s glar, and Defendant 13 had been aware of the victim’s glar, “On the left-hand part of the victim’s glar, glar, glar, glar, glar, and glar,” and continued to have the victim’s galle with the victim’s glar, “on the left-hand part of the elevator.”

As a result, Defendant 3, in collaboration with Nonindicted 13, led the victim to the left-hand side of the victim requiring approximately two weeks of treatment.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (No. 2007 Gohap182) against Defendant 1

Defendant 1: (a) around 02:00 on August 12, 2007, at the main point of “Cheongju-dong,” located in Heungdong-gu, Seodong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; (b) Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 15, who is an organization of the “Marari Sari Sari” and Defendant 4 (age 32), who is an employee of the “Marari Sari Sari” while drinking alcohol together with Nonindicted 14, which is the organization of the “Marari-gu,” and Defendant 1, the victim, were deemed to have drinking alcohol as the main point; (c) Nonindicted 15, who is the same age, was aware of the body of Nonindicted 15, who was the victim, but was neglected from Nonindicted 15.

Defendant 1, at around 02:30 on the same day, said that the victim had a fluorial fluorous fluorial fluorial fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluoring, but was refused to hear the victim’s desire and refuse to do so, Nonindicted 15 also 15, and continued to meet the victim’s bluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluorous fluor, which had arrived at the site after being contacted by Nonindicted 14 in the front of the said State.

As such, Defendant 1 told the victim that “I have to meet the face of the victim’s face,” Defendant 1 frighted the victim by walking the head part of the victim’s head in a way that she takes one time, and fright the victim’s face. In this case, the above Nonindicted 16 and 17 neglected the victim’s influence around the Defendant.

As a result, Defendant 1 jointly with the above Nonindicted 16, 17, and caused the victim to be saved in the days of treatment.

3. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury and joint violence) against Defendant 4, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint injury) against Defendant 2 and 6, and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendant 3 (Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective injury, injury by deadly weapons, etc., collective injury, deadly weapons, etc.), and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. against Defendant 3 (No. 2007 Goun182, 196

At the time and place indicated in paragraph (2) of this Article, Nonindicted 15, who was under dispute with Nonindicted 15 on the ground of the above head of Nonindicted 1 (the 29-year-old knife), took once the victim’s face from Defendant 4, Nonindicted 16 (the 29-year-old knife) and Defendant 17 (the 17-year-old knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif k).

Accordingly, Defendant 3 and 4 jointly with Nonindicted 2, 15, 18, and 19, among them, Defendant 3 carried dangerous things, and among them, Defendant 1 suffered an injury to Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 17, respectively, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 6 inflicted an injury on the victim Nonindicted 1, jointly with Defendant 3 and 4.

4. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Organization and activity of an organization, etc.) against the Defendants

A. Defendant 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 each criminal organization activity in Schlage (208, 25)

Around October 206, Nonindicted 15, 19, and 20, Nonindicted 21, which are the 10th unit of “Paras wave, was dissatisfied with Nonindicted 15, 19, and 20, which are the 10th unit of the organization, that Nonindicted 21, which is the 9th unit of the organization’s line distribution, seeks Nonindicted 21, which is the 9th group’s line distribution, to command much dynamics, and demanded Nonindicted 21 to retire from the organization’s organizational life, and if Nonindicted 21 does not retire from the organization’s organizational life, they will have their organizational life. At the same time, Nonindicted 22, which is the 10th unit of the organization, was prevented from attending the marriage ceremony of Nonindicted 22, which is the 15th unit of the organization, around October 14, 2006, Defendant 3, which is the 9th unit of the organization, was merely a complex around October 16, 2006.

Accordingly, Non-Indicted 23, etc., which are the 7th organization of the same organization, tried to correct the discipline against the act of causing a fluence and to correct the discipline of the following officers in order to continue to exist and maintain the organization. From 20:00 to 21:00 on October 2006, the day he knows that he did not know of the last day of the organization, Cheongju-si pak-dong (Land Number omitted), and Ssch Rexroth-si on the second floor of the organization, Cheongju-si, Defendant 4,6, 16, 17, 18, and 19, which is the 8th organization of the same organization, called the above defendants, and then the above defendants “Iskn't have to be able to take means, how you can teach the organization, how you can teach the organization, how you will give education to him, and how you will be able to learn and correct after the distribution.”

Then, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, 16, 17, 18, and 19 did not call for an emergency call and call up 20 assistant employees, including Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 21, 24, 19, 20, and 11, who were the nine members of the same organization, and Defendant 2, 20, and Nonindicted 25, and 12, 21, and Nonindicted 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31, who were the nine members of the organization.

At this point, Defendant 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, and 19 stated, Defendant 4, 6, 16, 17, 18, and 19 stated, “I would like to know that the post-satising of the mechanism has been damaged, that I would be educated, that I would be able to receive education, and that I would go back to the next 12 period.” After giving an instruction and direction for the continuation and maintenance of organization, I would like to give up the lighting staff from 9 to 12 in order to go back to the next satis, and then, I would like to put up the steering staff in order to the next 9 to the next 12-year 12-year am and 5-15 ambucks.

On the other hand, Defendant 2, 3, 12, 20, and 21 decided to continue and maintain organization by promptly gathering them in response to the above emergency call, following Defendant 16 et al.’s instruction and instruction on the existence and maintenance of organization from Defendant 16 et al., and following Defendant 16 et al.’s resolution on the existence and maintenance of organization by complying with the discipline and instruction.

As a result, the above Defendants conspired to act as a member to maintain and strengthen the “Saraar”, which is a criminal organization.

B. The fact that Defendant 2, 3, 4, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 engage in the activities of criminal organizations in the triparks (2008, 25)

Defendant 4, 16, 17, 18, and 19, which are the eight-year organization, together with Defendant 4, 16, 17, 18, and 19, on October 15, 2006, which is the day following the case described in the above paragraph (a), called the three-party park located in a number of Dong-dong (number omitted) of Cheongju City, around 15:00, which is the day when he knows the first day of October 14, 206; Defendant 3 and Nonindicted 24, 32, and 10, which are the nine-year organization of the same organization; Defendant 2, and Nonindicted 25, 12, and 21, who are the causes of the organization, and Nonindicted 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 133, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, 34, 35, and 28, respectively.

At all times, Defendant 16, etc., who are the eight-year organization, resolved to maintain and maintain the organization due to the following: “Influenites on the previously-run day, they will also engage in a horse, he will immediately engage in his behavior in the future, if any, once again, he shall be informed of the end of his life”; “I well-funcing the organized life”; and the subsequent researchers who answer the large voice of “e.g., g., g., g., g., g., g.,” and so on.

Accordingly, Defendants 2, 3, 4, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 act as a member of the crime organization in collusion for the purpose of maintaining and strengthening the "mara wave".

C. The defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12's activities of each criminal organization in the Sod Field Park for the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12

At around 02:30 on August 12, 2007, Defendant 2, who was at the site of the “Sada sada sada sama” as indicated in the above paragraphs 2 and 3, had Nonindicted 15 and 18, and Nonindicted 2, a 18-year organization of the same organization, drive a car operated by Nonindicted 15 of the same organization, thereby leading Nonindicted 2 to the Soak field park located in the Young-gu So-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu.

After that, Defendant 4 called Defendant 9 and 10, which is the counterpart criminal body, to grasp the trend of the organization of “Maramanm wave”, Defendant 3, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 11, which is the nine-year organization of “Maramanm wave,” Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 27, and 29, Nonindicted 27, and Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 15, and Defendant 7, and Defendant 7, which is the 15-year organization; Defendant 5, and Defendant 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 25, and Defendant 15, to prepare for liaison between the nine-year organization, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 36, and Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 37, and Nonindicted 17, who are the members of the said organization.

Accordingly, Defendants 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 12 acted as a member in collusion with Nonindicted 2, 15, 18, 22, 27, 29, 36, 37, and 38 for the purpose of maintaining and strengthening the “surger”, which is a criminal organization.

D. Defendant 1, 10, 11, 13, and 14’s activities in each criminal organization at “○○○ cafeteria” (No. 2007 Gohap182, 215)

At around 02:30 on August 12, 2007, as indicated in paragraphs 2 and 3 above, Nonindicted Party 1, who was at the site of “Maramanm wave” with the counterparts of Nonindicted Party 1, who used mobile phones, to contact Defendant 11, who is the same term organization. Defendant 11, who is the 12 term organization, was 40, Nonindicted Party 13, Nonindicted Party 39, and Nonindicted Party 17, who is the 14th term organization, and Defendant 13 again, Defendant 14 and Nonindicted Party 14, who is the 14th term of the 14th term organization, from around 0, Nonindicted Party 43, 42, and 12, which are Nonindicted Party 14, to Nonindicted Party 40, Nonindicted Party 14, Defendant 14, Defendant 14, and Nonindicted Party 14, Defendant 16, Defendant 4, Defendant 14, Defendant 14, Defendant 14, and Defendant 14, Defendant 16 and 14 were called the 14th term.

Accordingly, Defendant 1, 10, 11, 13, and 14 as a member of the above Non-Indicted 16, 17, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, and 49 in collusion with the above Non-Indicted 16, 17, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47

E. On August 13, 2007, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 15, the activity of a criminal organization at the parking lot for the Sejong-do Hospital (No. 2007Dahap215, 231)

Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 15 and Defendant 1, who is the organization of the “Pariam wave,” who is the organization of Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 1, confirmed that the police is carrying out the investigation of the relevant persons in relation to the violence incidents as described in the above paragraphs 2 and 3, and, if multiple assistant members discovered that the violence incidents have been committed by using a lethal weapon as above, a large number of assistant members belonging to the two criminal organizations may be punished, and accordingly, they had attempted to reduce the contents of the violence incidents by predicting difficulties in the maintenance and strengthening of the organization.

Accordingly, on August 13, 2007, at the parking lot of “Sarara Mara Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana,” Nonindicted 18, who called Defendant 15 and was investigated by the Chungcheong Police Agency, instructed Defendant 15 to move Nonindicted 2 into the Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana. Defendant 2, 3, and 4, who was the organization of “Mara Mara Mana Mana”, called “Mana Mana Mana” and called “Mana Mana Mana Ma,” the organization of “Mara Mana”, which was contacted by Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, and Nonindicted 17, who was the organization of “Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana Mana.

As a result, Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 15, who is a criminal organization, was engaged in activities as a member to maintain and strengthen the ‘Maraar wave' as a criminal organization, and Defendant 1, who is a criminal organization, as a member thereof.

F. On September 10, 2007, Defendant 8,9, and 10, on September 10, 2007, the activity of a criminal organization in the Gannam Park Parking Lot (2007 Gohap215)

Nonindicted 50, which is the organization of Defendant 8, 9, and 10, confirmed that the police investigation, such as requesting for large summons, in order to investigate the members of the police with respect to violent incidents as described in the above paragraphs 2 and 3 of the same Article, was in progress in a serious manner. If multiple investigators attend the police and make a statement of facts, a large number of trillion won may be punished, and accordingly, they would likely cause difficulties in maintaining and strengthening the organization, thereby preventing them from attending the police.

After that, the above Defendants, including Defendant 13, 14, and Nonindicted 39, set up a group of 10 staff members of the police force in order to prevent the presence of the police force, including 13, 14, and 39, Defendant 13 et al., but the above Defendants 13 et al. were gathered in the "Yeman-gu So-gu So-gu So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-called So-young" parking lot from September 10, 207 to 13:00, the above Defendants 13 et al. were al., and the above Defendants 8 called "the police force's appearance", and Defendant 9 called "the police force's appearance" as "the police force's appearance is so, so it is impossible to see that the police officer's appearance is so, and there is no organized violence."

Accordingly, in collusion with Nonindicted 50, Defendant 8, 9, and 10 were engaged in activities as a member to maintain and strengthen the “Sinura”, a criminal organization.

5. Inflicting Defendant 5 (No. 2008Gohap26)

At around 01:20 on September 19, 2007, Defendant 5 was working as an employee at the “Scambling shop” located in the Seosung-gu Daejeon Pungdong, Daejeon, and the victim Nonindicted 51, who was a guest, was subjected to an offer that the drinking value was too high from the victim Nonindicted 51, who was the guest, and Defendant 5 tried to look at the victim’s studio with the victim at the above studio, stating that “the victim was frightd without any fright and any fright,” and tried to look at the victim’s studio, and the victim’s face was frightd by walking the victim’s eye once.

After that, the Defendant stated to the effect that the victim would not calculate the drinking value to Nonindicted 52 of his own Dong fee, which the victim tried to calculate the drinking value in the above main car transportter on the ground of the above assault, and the Defendant led the victim to the room in which the victim is unfolded, led the victim to a room, and led the victim to the other part of the victim's face in one arms, and met the victim's face by drinking in the other part of the other part, and met the side interest and the part of the victim again.

As a result, the defendant put the victim with a face-to-face 14-day therapy.

6. The point of attack against Defendant 15 (No. 2007 altitude 215)

피고인 15는 2007. 8. 30. 03:20경 청주시 상당구 용암동에 있는 ‘ □□□ 식당’ 앞 노상에서, 우연히 만난 피해자 공소외 53(40세)으로부터 이전에 피고인이 주점을 운영하면서 안주 재료로 납품받은 과일 대금 중 외상값 12만 원의 지급을 요구받게 되자 화가 나, 피해자의 멱살을 잡아 흔들면서 “야, 빡빡이 새끼야, 뭔 소리하는 거냐, 얼마냐”고 욕설을 하고 손으로 피해자의 얼굴 부위를 수회 때리는 등으로 만일 더 이상의 외상값 지급을 요구하면 피해자의 신체 등에 어떠한 위해를 가할 것 같은 태도를 보여, 이에 겁을 먹은 피해자로 하여금 위 외상값 청구를 단념하도록 함으로써 동액 상당의 재산상 이익을 취득하였다.

【Paragraph 1 of this Article】

1. Statement made by Defendant 3 in the third protocol of the trial in this Court 2007 High Court 182, 196, 217, 231 (each combination);

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 type 21517 record of evidence of the case)

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against Nonindicted 13 by the prosecution

1. Each police statement about ○○;

1. A letter of entrustment (allied neurosis);

[Paragraphs 2, 3 and 4-C, 4]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 10 and 11;

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 1, 2, and 3 and Nonindicted 2 in the second trial records of the instant case (defendant 1, 2, and 3)

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 12, 13, and 14 in the first trial records of this Court in the case No. 2007 Gohap215 (as to Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14);

1. Each part of the statements made by Defendant 4, 5, and 10 in the second trial records of the court in 2007 Gohap215 case (as to Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14);

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 2 in the second trial record of the case No. 2007 Gohap215 (as to Defendant 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14)

1. The witness Nonindicted 54’s legal statement and each of the legal statements of Defendant 1, 12, 13, 14, Nonindicted 1, 37, 38, 39, 43, 44, and 46 of the witness

1. The statement of the witness Nonindicted Party 1 in the fourth trial record of the instant case (defendant 2 and 3)

(hereinafter referred to as "Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007-type penalty No. 27128, defendant 1, 2, and 3)

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor concerning the defendant 1, 2, and non-indicted 2 in each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution

1. Some statements made by the defendant 5, non-indicted 17, 27, 29, 36, and 38 among the copies of each police's interrogation protocol

1. Part of the statement made by the police against the defendant 14

1. Part of the statement made by the police against the defendant 5 and the non-indicted 29

1. Report on the organization of the Pakistan;

1. A detailed statement of suspect's currency;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Nonindicted 1’s opinion

1. Court rulings by suspects;

(hereinafter referred to as "Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007-type or 29173-type evidence records, Defendant 3

1. Entry of Defendant 3 in part of the interrogation protocol of the second prosecutor's office as to Defendant 3;

1. A suspect's telephone statement;

1. On-site and Nonindicted 1’s photographs and on-site photographs

1. Statement of opinion;

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 punishment 26480, 31935

1. Some statements made by the prosecution concerning the defendant 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and non-indicted 2 and 39

1. Some statements made by the Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 2 in the copies of each protocol of examination of suspect suspect by the prosecution

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 55 and 56

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 57

1. Organizational emergency liaison chart;

1. A written request for business cooperation;

1. Each suspect's statement of call, each statement of call of Defendant 12, Nonindicted 39, Defendant 4, 6, 10, 15, Nonindicted 15, 16, and 18

1. On the spot and Nonindicted 1’s photograph

1. Each judgment;

[Article 4-A, Paragraph 2]

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 4, 17, 18, and 21 and each legal statement of the defendant 3, 6, 12, 16, 19, and 20;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant 2, 17, 19, and 21 by the witness;

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007-type penalty No. 4565) Evidence records

1. Copy of each protocol of examination of the suspect against the defendant 3, 4, 16, 18, 19, and 20 by the prosecution;

1. Some of the statements made by the defendant 4, 17, and 21 in a copy of the statement made by the prosecution of the prosecution;

1. Details of medical care benefits and medical treatment days for suspects;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Each judgment;

[Article 4-5(e)]

1. The entry of Defendant 1 in the fourth protocol of the instant case and the entry of each part of Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 in each protocol (defendant 1, 2, and 3)

1. The records of Defendant 15 in the first trial records of the case 2007 Gohap215, the second trial records of the same case, and Defendant 4 in each part of the second trial records of the same case (Defendant 4, 15)

1. The statement made by Nonindicted Party 2 in the second trial record of the case No. 2007 Gohap215 in this Court (Defendant 4, 15 against Defendant 4 and 15)

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 punishment 26480, 31935

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor concerning the defendant 4 and 15 in the suspect examination protocol of each prosecution;

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in each protocol of interrogation of the suspect against Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 2

1. Some statements among the third interrogation protocol prepared by the police about Nonindicted 16 and 17

1. Details of each currency of Defendant 4, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 18

(hereinafter referred to as "Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 type No. 32066 type records, Defendant 1, 2, and 3)

1. Some statements made by the Defendant 3, 4, 15, and Nonindicted 2 in the copies of each protocol of interrogation of the suspect by the prosecution

1. Some statements are written in the third written protocol of interrogation of Nonindicted 16 and 17 by the police.

1. Details of each currency of Defendant 4, Nonindicted 15, and Nonindicted 18

【No. 4-B.】

1. The description of each of the defendant 8, 9, and 10 in the second protocol of the trial of the court in 2007 Gohap215 case

1. Defendant 11, 13, 14, Nonindicted 1, 39, 43, 44, 46, and 58’s respective legal statements

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 punishment 26480, 31935

1. Some statements made by the prosecution against the defendants 8, 9, 10, 13, 14 and non-indicted 39 in each protocol of suspect examination of the prosecution

【paragraph 5 of this Article】

1. The defendant 5's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 51, 52, and 59

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007-type 34614 Evidence records)

1. The prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 51 (including Nonindicted 52’s statement)

1. A medical certificate;

【Paragraph 6 of the market】

1. Statement made by Defendant 15 in the first protocol of the trial in this Court 2007 Gohap215

(hereinafter referred to as Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office 2007 punishment 26480, 31935

1. The second protocol concerning the examination of the suspect against the defendant 15;

1. The police statement of Nonindicted 53

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Each criminal history report and each investigation report (the confirmation of the date of release, etc.);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendants: Article 4(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (including the activities of criminal organizations, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 12, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 21 of the Criminal Act)

○ Defendant 4: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of each joint injury), Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of each joint violence), the selection of each sentence of imprisonment.

○ Defendant 1, 2, and 6: Articles 2(2) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury) and the choice of imprisonment

○ Defendant 3: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury and the choice of imprisonment), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of inflicting an injury on each group, deadly weapon, etc.), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault, such as a group, deadly weapon, etc.)

○ Defendant 5: Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of injury) and choice of imprisonment

○ Defendant 15: Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (a) and choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant 4 and 12: The proviso of Article 35 and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act [Provided, That with respect to Defendant 4, only the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Composition and Activity of Organizations, etc.) shall be applicable]

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 13: latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant 4: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, Article 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act [as to the punishment determined for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Organization and Activity of Organizations, etc.) with the largest punishment]

○ Defendant 1, 2, 5, 6, 15: As to the punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Article 50 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (Organization and Activity of Organizations, etc.) with heavier punishment: Provided, That with respect to Defendant 15, it shall be within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of two crimes];

○ Defendant 3: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [as to the punishment imposed on Nonindicted 1 of the severe victim who is sentenced to punishment and imprisonment with prison labor]

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21 of the Criminal Act : (i) the activities of the criminal organization of the accused are replaced by those of the defendants for the purpose of the internal decision-making; (ii) other additional crimes at the level of the criminal organization; (iii) the Defendants did not proceed to the other additional crimes at the level of the criminal organization; (iv) the defendants recognized and talked in depth; (iv) the activities of the rest of the defendants except Defendant 12 were committed on one case for a short time; and (v) Defendant 12 appears to have been operating the recent dog and endeavored to live faithfully with their family members; and (v) Defendant 1 and 15 agreed with each victim).

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Defendants: Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 19: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act ( normal consideration given to the above Defendants in light of their respective reasons for discretionary mitigation)

1. Probation and community service order;

Defendant 1, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, and 19: Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

1. The prosecutor brought a public prosecution on the premise that the activities of each of the instant criminal organizations by Defendant 1, etc. of this case constitute substantive concurrent crimes. However, the "activities" as members of the criminal organization under Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to all the activities carried out for the maintenance and reinforcement of the organization or organization as members of an organized body with a continuous and minimum command system, even though they are committed by many specific persons under the common purpose of committing crimes under the same Act. As long as the concept of the crime organization itself includes the elements of continuity itself, it is reasonable to deem that the activities carried out for the maintenance and reinforcement of the crime organization, etc. in the position of its members also include a certain degree of continuity. ② The legislative purpose of the above Act, separately from the formation or joining of the criminal organization under the previous Act, which provides for punishment for the activities of its members, is established and completed at the same time as the formation and joining of the criminal organization and the statute of limitations proceeds, and thus, the act of the Defendant has not been punished once or completed at the same time as members of the specific criminal organization.

2. Article 4(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act provides that not only an act of forming an organization or group with the purpose of committing a crime, or joining such an organization or group, but also an act of "act" as a member thereof shall be punished. The concept "act" under the above Act refers to any act conducted by a criminal organization or a member of such organization or organization for the maintenance and reinforcement of such organization or organization, and it does not constitute a private and formal exchange act, such as participation among the members.

On the other hand, whether a member's specific act constitutes a member's activity or a deceased and courtesy act should be determined practically by comprehensively taking into account the specific circumstances such as the date, time, place, and contents of the act, motives and circumstances in which the act was performed, relationship between the person who decided the will and the actor, and the process of delivering the will.

In the instant case, as to whether each act listed in subparagraph 4-A, (b) constitutes “activities as a constituent member” under the above Act, the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, i.e., ① under the circumstances where the so-called marctic situation that harms the order of deceptive scheme among the members of the organization, which is a crime group with the general characteristics of the order of deceptive scheme, was the time when the officers of the group called up and guide the group of assistant officers to call up and guide the group of assistant officers, and so-called 'the so-called marcing' to call up the group of assistant officers, and the subsequent assistant officers actively followed the above acts by the members of the organization, and it is evident that the act of violence and maintenance by the members of the organization itself constitutes an act of violence and maintenance under the above Act, and even if it is obviously probable that some of the members of the organization, who joined the organization, were forced to follow the organization’s punishment by reason of the organization’s act of violence and maintenance, etc., and it constitutes the so-called organization’s punishment.

Next, in light of the following facts: (a) Nonindicted Party 1 was aware of whether each of the instant activities listed in the 4-C and D was an act of a 0-year group, and the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence; (b) Defendant 1 was an organization of the instant 8-year group or a group of the crime group, which was its competitive force, and thus, Defendant 4 and 10-year group’s non-indicted 6-year group’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 8’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 2’s non-indicted 3’s non-indicted 1’s non-indicted 1’s non-2’s non-indicted.

In addition, as to whether each act in paragraph 4-e and paragraph (f) of the judgment constitutes a "act as a member of the criminal organization" under the above law, it is recognized that the statement of the person involved in the case in the investigation was changed differently from the statement in the existing investigation agency in the situation where punishment is anticipated to be imposed for the majority of union members due to violence incidents between the union members and the union members of the "Marara" of the above evidence, and that the statement of the person involved in the case in the investigation conducted after the division of the talk about the case was changed differently from the statement in the investigation agency, and that the defendant 8, 9, and 10, as the victim of this violence, which was anticipated to be punished for minor punishment, was extended the scope of investigation to the members of the criminal organization, and the punishment for the union members was expected after the extension of the scope of investigation, and in view of the fact that the defendant 8, 9, and 10, which is the victim of this violence incident, were also acknowledged as a member of the crime organization to strengthen the "Mara."

3. As to Article 4-C of the judgment, Defendant 4 and Defendant 7 asserted that they did not gather at dry field park, and that telephone conversations with members of the same organization or members of the other organization around that time was related to daily life. However, in full view of the telephone time, frequency, and the other party to the telephone call recognized by taking account of each of the above evidence, Defendant 4 played a role in identifying the situation by telephone with members of the other organization, who are the other organization, and Defendant 7 served as the role of delivering the direction of call-up to the members of the same organization by telephone. Thus, even if the above Defendants did not actually gather at the dry field park, this part of the facts charged cannot be found guilty.

The degree and contents of the Defendants’ participation in each of the crimes of this case, the contents and duration of their activities as an employee of a criminal organization, the status of each organization, the criminal records up to this issue, whether the Defendants provided the causes of violence in the “Cheongsaei”, which are acknowledged by the evidence above, and other factors of sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are shown in the arguments of this case, including the ages, character and conduct, family environment, and the motive, means, and consequences of the crime of this case, shall be determined as ordered by taking into account all the factors of sentencing

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act due to the activities of the criminal organizations in the Samil Park as to Defendant 6,20 is that Defendant 6,20 acted as a member of the "Maras wave", which is a criminal organization, by making a resolution on the continuation and maintenance of organization by making a prompt call in collusion with Defendant 16, etc., as described in paragraph (b) of the instant judgment, in collusion with Defendant 4.

As to this, the defendant 6 and 20 consistently asserted that they do not have any fact in Samil Park on the above date, since the investigative agency to this court.

On the other hand, it is difficult to believe that each statement of the suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 17, 19, and 21, which seems to correspond to the above facts charged, was made by the prosecutor, and it was merely a studio that the contents itself could not accurately memory them, but the same as the above Defendants were in the Samil Park. In addition, it is obvious that the above Defendants 17 et al. were not al. at the time when they were present as witnesses in this court, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant 6 and 20 shall be pronounced not guilty under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because it falls under the case where there is no proof of crime. However, as long as the court found the guilty of Article 4-A of the holding in a single comprehensive crime, it shall not be pronounced not guilty

Judges Oeo-dae (Presiding Justice)