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

[2] The case holding that the crime of violence does not constitute the crime of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in case where one person who was indicted as an accomplice of the assault meets the other person

[1] "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of violence" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them, and that there is a case where several persons are aware of another person's crime in the same opportunity at the same place and used it.

[2] The case holding that the crime of violence does not constitute the crime of Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in case where one person who was prosecuted as the accomplice of the assault reaches the other person

[1] Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 1995) / [2] Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 5057 of Dec. 29, 195)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do119 decided Jun. 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 894) Supreme Court Decision 90Do202 decided Oct. 30, 1990 (Gong1990, 248) Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153 decided Jan. 29, 1991 (Gong1991, 902) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 70Do163 decided Mar. 10, 197 (No. 18-1, 40), Supreme Court Decision 81Do1934 decided Oct. 26, 1982 (Gong1982, 279), Supreme Court Decision 86Do19739 decided Oct. 14, 1986 (No. 1997, Mar. 197)

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor

Seoul District Court Decision 95No152 delivered on June 1, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, with regard to the facts charged that the defendants jointly committed assault against the victim around 09:30 on April 3, 1994, the court below held that the above recognition and judgment of the court below are all acceptable in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principles as to legitimate acts, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or violation of the rules of law.

2. "When two or more persons jointly commit the crime of violence" under Article 2 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act requires that there exists a so-called co-offender relationship between them. Further, there are several persons at the same place, recognizing another person's crime in the same opportunity and committing the crime by using it (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do2153, Jan. 29, 1991). Thus, in this case, if the defendant 2 met the defendant 1's act of violence in the course of dispute with the victim and the victim's act of violence, the defendant 1 cannot be deemed to have committed the crime jointly with the defendant 2.

In this regard, the judgment of the court below which dismissed the prosecution against the same defendant on the ground that Defendant 1's act constitutes only the crime of assault under the Criminal Act, and that the victim did not punish the above defendant, is correct, and there is no violation of law of misunderstanding the legal principles like the theory of lawsuit.

All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)