A. Whether the joint principal offender of the crime of negligence is constituted

(b) The case recognizing the co-principal of an offender through negligence;

1. As stated in Article 30 of the Criminal Code, the phrase "if the crime is jointly committed" is "the crime committed" and "the offender is an intentional crime", so if two or more persons have committed a crime by building a specific act of negligence in contact with each other, they constitute a joint principal offender of a crime of negligence.

2. In a case where an accident occurred due to the reason that the above driver was caused due to drinking, the person on board the appointed passenger is responsible for supervising the safe operation of the driver's disease, but instead, the person on board the appointed passenger is responsible for driving the driver's disease and drinking it together after entering the driving station.

Article 30 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294 Form598 Delivered on March 29, 1962

Defendant

(National Election) Attorneys Kim Sang-soo

The Army, High Military Court Decision 79 High Military Port53 delivered on April 10, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The defendant and his/her state appointed defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

원심 판결이유에 의하면, 피고인은 제1심 공동피고인이 운전하던 이 사건 짚차의 선임탑승자로서 이 운전병의 안전운행을 감독하여야 할 책임이 있는 것이므로 제1심 공동피고인이 차량운행중 음주를 한다면 이를 적극 제지하여야 할 뿐만 아니라, 동인이 안전운행을 할 수 있는 정도로 술에서 깰 때까지는 운전을 하지 못하도록 할 주의의무가 있음에도 불구하고, 오히려 운전병을 데리고 주점에 들어가서 각각 소주2홉 이상을 마신 다음 이를 운전케 한 결과, 위 제1심 공동피고인은 음주로 인하여 취한 탓으로 차량의 전조등에 현기를 느껴 전후좌우를 제대로 살피지 못한 결과 본건 사고가 발생한 것이라는 사실을 인정하고, 공동정범에 관한 형법 제30조 를 적용 하여 피고인을 다스리고 있다.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code provides that "When a person commits a crime jointly," "the crime is an intentional crime, regardless of whether it is an intentional crime, and therefore, if two or more persons have committed a crime through the construction of a specific act of negligence in contact with each other, it shall be deemed that the joint principal offender of a crime of negligence is established (Supreme Court Decision 4294Ma598 delivered on March 29, 1962). In the same regard, the court below was justified that the defendant deemed the defendant as a joint principal offender of a crime of negligence based on the above facts of recognition, and there is no misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the joint principal offender or causation, such as the theory of lawsuit, or there is no misunderstanding of the law as to the inconsistency with the reason.

In short, the arguments can not be employed as an attack against the judgment of the court below from a point different from the legal opinion of the court below, unless the facts that cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal in this case were alleged.

Therefore, this appeal shall return to the absence of merit and is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)