logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1986. 6. 24. 선고 86도380 판결
[폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반][공1986.8.1.(781),965]
Main Issues

The meaning of "when two or more persons jointly commit a crime" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

Summary of Judgment

When two or more persons jointly commit a crime under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act means the case where several persons jointly commit an injury or assault, recognizing that there is so-called co-offender relationship between them, and several persons inflict an injury or assault on the same opportunity at the same time and using it.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

Reference Cases

Supreme Court Decision 81Do1934 delivered on January 26, 1982, 85Do325 delivered on June 11, 1985

Escopics

Defendant

upper and high-ranking persons

Prosecutor

original decision

Jeonju District Court Decision 84No225 delivered on November 16, 1985

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles of Article 2(2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and rejected the accomplice relation, even though it is obvious that the defendant jointly with Co-Defendant 1, 2, and 3, and 1 et al. were saved with three victim 1 et al.

(1) Examining the evidence and records in comparison with the reasoning of the judgment below, the defendant 1 met with co-defendant 1, the head of the Dong Ri Ban, and 1 family member of the victim's family (victim 2, the head of the mother victim 3) met with co-defendant 3, who was living in the co-defendant 1's house, and followed them by the money transaction relationship with the co-defendant 3, and the co-defendant 1's head and head of the other co-defendant 1 were boomed and the other co-defendant 1's head and the other co-defendant 1 and the other co-defendant 1 were flicked in order to boom the fighting, but the defendant did not listen to the victim's words, and it was found that the defendant did not have any violence on the part of the other co-defendant 1, the male side and the other victim on the part of the defendant.

(2) When two or more persons jointly commit a crime under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship among several persons. Since several persons are aware of the injury or assault committed by others at the same time at the same place and used it, it refers to the case where several persons inflict injury or assault by using it (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do325, Jun. 11, 1985). Thus, the judgment of the court below that the defendant and co-defendant 1, 2, and 3 cannot be concluded to have a co-defendant relationship with each other as stated above is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of joint assault or joint crime liability as discussed in the arguments. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)

arrow