The meaning of "organization for the purpose of crime" under Article 114 (1) of the Criminal Act

Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the term "organization aimed at a crime" means a continuous combination under the common purpose of which many and specified persons commit a certain crime, which requires the establishment of a minimum-level command system leading the organization, depending on the simple group of multiple groups. Although the Defendants agreed to share the act of implementation for the purpose of committing the crime of each set of retail machines, it is justifiable to find the Defendants not guilty on the grounds that there is no evidence to deem that the Defendants organized an organization with continuous and leading system or joined such an organization.

Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do3463 Delivered on December 27, 1977

Defendant 1 and 21 others

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 81No2879 delivered on July 25, 1981

The prosecutor's appeal and the defendant 1 and 2's appeal are all dismissed.

1. Prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime purpose of Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act is to establish a minimum leading system, which leads an organization, as a continuing body under the common purpose of which many people conduct a certain crime (see Supreme Court Decision 76Do340, Apr. 13, 1976; Supreme Court Decision 77Do3463, Dec. 27, 1977). We examine the records and examine the judgment of the court below in light of the facts charged in the crime of organization or joining the crime of this case against the defendants, the court below can find the facts that the defendants agreed to gather each crime of this case for the purpose of the crime of retailing each term, but it can be recognized that the measures that found the defendants not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that there is no evidence that the organization equipped with a continuous and leading system was organized or joined in such an organization, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joining the crime organization or joining the organization.

2. Defendant 1’s grounds of appeal are examined.

As in the theory of novels, even if the above defendant committed habitual larceny under the purpose of collecting and informing the investigation agency of the evidence about the crime committed by the above defendant, such reason alone cannot be viewed as an act that is not so-called illegal by the defendant. Thus, there is no reason to criticize the judgment below in the dissenting opinion, and the argument that the amount of punishment imposed by the court below is too excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal in this case.

3. Defendant 2's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purport that the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence, or comparing the evidence cited by the court below with the records, it is not recognized that there was an error in the theory of action against the defendant as to the measure recognizing the crime of habitual larceny. The arguments are groundless.

Therefore, both the prosecutor's appeal and the defendant 1 and 2's appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)