Cases where the establishment of the crime of organization of a criminal organization can be recognized.

Along with the intent to organize a thief organization with the aim of theft in order to raise efficiency in thefting another's property, if the two are to share the thief, acting members, and the responsibility for disposal of stolen property is to share, and if the person prepared the thief, handlight, wallet, blaf, age line, etc., he/she may be deemed to have organized the th

Article 114 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Do935 delivered on August 19, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 750 delivered on November 7, 1969; Decision 69Do2061 delivered on December 26, 1969

Defendant 1 and four others

Prosecutor (excluding Defendant 5) and (excluding Defendant 5)

Daegu District Court of First Instance (75 Gohap303)

The original judgment against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 6 years and by imprisonment with prison labor for 7 years.

Out of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below, 165 days each, and 160 days each, for Defendant 3, shall be included in the said punishment.

The seized food map 1, large draber 1, excessive 1 (Evidence Nos. 2,3,10) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1, and from Defendant 3, the hand batteries 1, white-type 1, white-type 720 centimeters, green balpump 720 centimeters, green balp, 130 centimeters and 130 centimeters, food balptop, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 28 to 30 square meters shall be confiscated.

All appeals filed by Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 and by the Prosecutor against Defendant 4 and 5 are dismissed.

The gist of the prosecutor's first ground for appeal is that the court below found the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that there was no evidence to see that the Defendants conspired to commit a crime organization against the Defendants 1, 2, and 3 several times, but there was no evidence to see that the Defendants organized the crime organization. However, the Defendants gather in advance with the Nonindicted Party and share their respective responsibilities under the name of the Nonindicted Party, such as acting expenses, place of the crime, material color, stolen disposal, etc., and even if there was sufficient evidence to prove that the Defendants committed several crimes by preparing various organizations necessary for the crime, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the organization of the crime, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The second ground for appeal is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of the organization of the crime, and it was unreasonable to see that the Defendants did not have any excessive influence on the judgment of the court below in light of the fact that Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4's summary of the grounds for appeal was found to have never been found to have infringed upon the environment of the Defendant 2.

First of all, in light of the reasons for appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 and the reasons for appeal by the prosecutor against Defendant 4 and 5, the fact-finding by the court below cannot be deemed to be erroneous in light of the evidence duly examined by the court below. In addition, in light of all the circumstances shown in the records such as the defendants' criminal records, age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means, consequence, circumstance after the crime, etc., the sentencing by the court below cannot be deemed to be unfair, and there are no grounds for appeal

Next, in full view of the evidence duly admitted by the court below as to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles with respect to the defendants 1, 2, and 3, the defendants knew that the court below organized the organization aimed at larceny in order to enhance efficiency in taking stolen property together with the non-indicteds at the 19:00 from the first and last day of August 1975, 1975, the defendants knew that the non-indicteds were to be organized by the organization aimed at larceny in order to raise efficiency in taking stolen property with the non-indicteds, and the stolen property disposition, etc. shall be decided through the defendants 4, etc., and the stolen property disposition, etc. shall be used for the crime, such as large-scale painting, food, street, excessive damages, knife, knife, knife, and knife, etc. which are jointly prepared for the crime, but it can be sufficiently recognized that the court below found the defendants not guilty on the ground of lack of evidence.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, each appeal filed by Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 and each appeal filed by the prosecutor against Defendant 4, and 5 is dismissed, and the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1, 2, and 3 is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act according to the prosecutor's appeal and it is

The facts of the crime acknowledged by a member of the party against the defendant 1, 2 and 3 and the facts of the crime are as follows: the defendants organized the organizations for larceny in collusion with the non-indicted, with the intention of raising efficiency by sharing the behavior of the non-indicted in the course of theft; on August 19, 1975, the 19:00 as of the first day of the 19:0, Daegu-si, Daegu-gu, Daegu-si, with the intention of raising the efficiency by sharing the property of another; and on the other hand, the non-indicted shall be responsible for the crime, such as the appearance, excessive, handout, knife, the knife, the knife, the knife, the knife, the knife, and the knife, etc.

Article 37 of the Criminal Act; Article 114 (1), Article 31 (2), and Article 331 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 32, Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 342 of the Criminal Act; Article 332, Article 331 (2) of the Criminal Act; Article 331 (1) of the same Act; Article 342 of the same Act; Article 332, and Article 331 (1) of the same Act; Article 332 of the same Act; Article 330 of the same Act; Article 32 of the same Act; Article 330 of the same Act; Article 16 of the same Act shall also apply to the crimes of habitual larceny; Article 1 of the same Act; Article 37 of the same Act shall also apply to the crimes of habitual robbery; and Article 36 of the same Act shall also apply to the crimes of habitual robbery;

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges fixed right (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul Kim Hun