[1] Requirements for establishing a conspiracy relationship in a conspiracy of co-principal

[2] The case holding that in a case where an adult amusement room operator Byung offered merchandise coupons to customers as gift gifts, exchanged them in cash at a place adjacent to Eul, and Gap additionally provided Byung with new merchandise coupons in an amount equivalent to the merchandise coupons collected from the money exchange station, the case holding that Gap, Eul, and Byung are regarded as co-principals of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.

[3] The case affirming the decision of the court below that confiscated cash and merchandise coupons confiscated at a money exchange station where customers exchange merchandise coupons received free in the adult amusement room for cash, which were provided or intended to be provided for the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc.

[4] Whether the property owned by the accomplice is subject to confiscation (affirmative)

[1] Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 30 (1) 4 (see current Article 30 (1) 1) of the former Act on Special Cases concerning Regulation and Punishment of Speculative Acts, Etc. (amended by Act No. 7901 of March 24, 2006) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act / [4] Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5652 Decided December 10, 2004 (Gong2005Sang, 157) / [4] Supreme Court Decision 2000Do745 Decided May 12, 200 (Gong200Ha, 1463)

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendants

Daegu District Court Decision 2006No2793 Decided November 17, 2006

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendants’ assertion as to the establishment of joint principal offender

In relation to co-offenders who are jointly engaged in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize the crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of doctors is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy is established (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5652, Dec. 10, 2004, etc.).

In full view of the evidence in its reasoning, the court below acknowledged that as the business owner of the adult amusement room in the judgment of the court below, Defendant 1 supplied merchandise coupons to customers as gift gifts while operating the amusement room, Defendant 2 exchanged merchandise coupons received from neighboring customers in cash. Defendant 1 recovered merchandise coupons (or merchandise coupons) from exchange stations as above, and provided the co-defendants of the court below with discount of new merchandise coupons equivalent to the amount of the old merchandise coupons at discount. According to this, the court below acknowledged that at least the defendants can be recognized that they shared the act of execution under the implied communication with which they share the difference arising from the reduction of the amount of merchandise coupons at par value at least from exchange. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's fact-finding and judgment can be justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles as to joint crime as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

2. As to the assertion on confiscation

A. Defendant 2’s assertion

In full view of the evidence in its reasoning, the court below acknowledged that cash seized at the money exchange office operated by Defendant 2 and articles or articles acquired by the criminal act other than the criminal defendant 2, which were provided or intended to be provided in the crime in the judgment of the court below in 2006, No. 187, No. 187, No. 4 through 9, which are merchandise coupons, do not belong to the possession of a person other than the criminal. In light of the records, the court below's above measures are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the Grounds for

B. Defendant 1’s assertion

Since an offender under Article 48 (1) of the Criminal Code is interpreted to include an accomplice, the offender's own property as well as the accomplice's property can be confiscated (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do745 delivered on May 12, 200, etc.). Even if the actual owner of the cash confiscated in a money exchange operated by Defendant 2 is Defendant 1, the court below's measure of forfeiture of the said cash from Defendant 2 who is in the relation of Defendant 1 and accomplice is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)