Whether both persons can be recognized as "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act if they share the roles of a person who directs all organizational activities in the hinterland of the crime organization and a person who takes charge of the command of the members of the organization (affirmative)

The term "the leader" as provided in subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and directs the activities of the organization as head of the head of the crime organization concerned, and it does not necessarily require one person. Thus, if a person who directs all the organizational activities in the hinterland of the "mamp", who is a criminal organization, takes part in the role as a person in charge of the command of the members of the organization, both persons may be recognized as the leader of the "mampam".

Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendants

Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 90No2769 delivered on October 24, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 120 days, the second crime at the time of the original adjudication on Defendant 1, the second crime at the time of the original adjudication on Defendant 2, the crime at the time of the original adjudication on Defendant 3, and the imprisonment at the time of the original adjudication on Defendant 3, 41-A(b) at the time of the original adjudication on Defendant

1. Determination as to Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal No. 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal No. 1 through No. 4. According to the records, as to each protocol of examination of a suspect on the co-defendant of the court below prepared by the prosecutor, it cannot be viewed that the above statement of Defendant 1 and the co-defendant of the court below on each protocol of examination of a suspect on each of the co-defendant of the court below acknowledged the authenticity of each protocol of examination of the court below, and that Defendant 1 consented to the admissibility of the protocol of examination of a suspect on each of the co-defendant of the court below as evidence. In addition, in light of the form and content of the protocol of examination, the above protocol of examination of a suspect on each of the defendant 1 and the co-defendant of the court below,

In addition, the evidence admitted by the court of first instance as cited by the court below is reviewed by comparing the records and records, it is a continuous combination with the purpose of committing a crime provided for in the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which is conducted by the organization "Seoul Maspa," which is at issue in this case and has a minimum leading system that leads the organization or maintains internal order, and Defendant 3 is the leader of the above "Seoul Maspa," along with the non-indicted 3, the non-indicted 3 directs all organization activities in the behind the organization, and the defendant 3 bears the role of leading the members of the organization, and the defendant 1 and 3 share the role of leading the members of the organization. The defendant 1 and 3 have joined the "Seoul Maspa," with the knowledge of the above fact that the "Seoul Maspa," as a criminal organization, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts in violation of the

In addition, the term "the leader" under Article 4 subparagraph 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a person who directs and leads the activities of the organization as the head of the head of the head of the relevant criminal organization, and it is not necessarily necessary to be one person. In the same purport, the court below's approval of both defendant 3 and the non-indicted as the leader of "the South Korean Literature" is just, and the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of law or the leader of the criminal organization without making a proper deliberation like the theory of the lawsuit.

In the end, all arguments are derived from the absence of reasons.

2. Judgment on Defendant 1’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 and defense counsel’s grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6

If the evidence admitted by the court of first instance is examined by comparing the records with the records, it can sufficiently recognize the criminal facts committed by Defendant 1 in violation of the Act on Special Robbery and Punishment of Violences, etc., and the criminal facts committed by Defendant 3 in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury and Intimidation). The judgment of the court below did not properly conduct the deliberation as to the points of objection as discussed in the judgment below, and it cannot be viewed that there was an error of law of misconception of facts in violation of the rules of evidence, and there

3. Therefore, all appeals shall be dismissed, and some of the detention days after the appeal shall be included in the imprisonment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)