The meaning of "the leader" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

The term "the leader" under Article 4 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to the person who directs and leads the action of an organization as the head of the head of the relevant criminal organization. Even if the person does not directly take charge of the lead of the members of the organization in front, the person who directs all the organizational activities in the hinterland or directs the activities of an organization through the intermediate executive officer constitutes a leader.

Article 4 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Domin-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorney Park In-bok et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 95No314 delivered on April 19, 1995

Each appeal shall be dismissed.

One hundred days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence for each of the Defendants.

The Defendants’ respective defense counsel’s grounds of appeal and Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below's finding the Defendants guilty of the facts constituting the crime is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence or the violation of the reasoning or the omission of reasons

Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and leads the action of an organization as the head of the head of the relevant criminal organization, and even if not directly in charge of the command of the members of the organization in the front, it constitutes a leader referred to in this Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do682, Jun. 26, 1992; 91Do3195, Feb. 25, 1992; 91Do3195, Feb. 25, 1992). Thus, it is proper that the court below viewed Defendant 1 as a leader, and the argument to criticize the judgment of the court below against other opinions is not acceptable.

The court below did not recognize Defendant 2 as a head of two sub-paragraphs, and found the first instance court as a head of two sub-paragraphs, based on the evidence adopted by the court of first instance, and other evidences of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, and held the fact-finding as an executive of the head of the wharf. The court below

All arguments are not acceptable since they merely criticize the selection of evidences and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below.

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

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)