The meaning of an organization for the purpose of committing an offense prescribed in Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act

The organization which aims to commit a crime under Article 114(1) of the Criminal Code requires a continuous combination under the common purpose of which many and specified persons commit a certain crime and has a minimum leading system leading the organization.

Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Do3463 delivered on December 27, 1977, Supreme Court Decision 81Do2608 delivered on November 24, 1981

Defendant 1 and two others

Defendant 1, 2, and Prosecutor (Defendant 2, Defendant 3)

Seoul Criminal District Court Decision 85No1489 decided June 11, 1985

All appeals are dismissed.

The sixty days, from among those pending trial after the appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence against Defendant 1.

1. Defendant 1 and 2's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the trial of the first instance and the trial of the court below's trial evidence, each of the judgments on the acquisition and embezzlement of stolen goods against Defendant 1 and the facts of the judgment on the forgery of private documents against Defendant 2, and the uttering of the same, are recognized lawfully, and there is no error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, which is groundless.

2. The prosecutor's grounds of appeal against the defendant 2 and 3 are examined.

A) Article 114(1) of the Criminal Act provides that an organization whose purpose is to commit a crime is to commit a crime is to keep a combination with multiple persons under the common purpose of committing a certain crime and have a minimum leading system leading the organization (Supreme Court Decision 76Do340 delivered on April 13, 197; Supreme Court Decision 77Do3463 delivered on November 27, 197; Supreme Court Decision 81Do2608 delivered on November 24, 1981). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since there is no evidence that Defendant 2 violated the rules of evidence against the crime organization among the facts charged in this case against Defendant 2, the court below opened a bank account with large amount of bills issued by the bank and issued them, and thus, it cannot be seen that the court below opened an organization with the same intent as “the above crime No. 1 unemployment” for the purpose of acquiring another person’s property, and obtained it from the bank’s own name to secure the order of the company’s own account and its own electronic equipment.

B) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, the court held that among the facts charged against Defendant 2, the facts charged of giving property in breach of trust and the facts charged of taking property in breach of trust against Defendant 3 should be returned to the absence of proof of crime as stated in its reasoning, and held the above Defendants not guilty of each of the above facts charged against the above Defendants. In light of the records, even if the court below takes such measures, it is just in examining the process of cooking the evidence which was conducted by the court below

3. Therefore, all appeals by Defendants 1 and 2 and by the prosecutor against Defendants 2 and 3 are dismissed, and as to Defendant 1, part of the number of days pending trial after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence against the same Defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jin-young (Presiding Justice)