Whether or not an accessory crime is established at the preliminary stage.

Since another person's crime defined in Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to a case where a principal offender commences the realization of a crime, it is reasonable to view that the establishment of a principal offender is denied, except in a case where the principal offender commences the principal offender in order to punish the principal offender, and in a case where the principal offender is at a preliminary stage which does not reach the commencement of the principal offender in light of the spirit of the entire Criminal Act.

Defendant

Prosecutor

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 74No6333 delivered on December 17, 1974

The appeal is dismissed.

Judgment on the Prosecutor's Grounds of Appeal

A person who aids and abets another person's crime under Article 32 (1) of the Criminal Act refers to a case where a principal offender commences to realize a crime. Therefore, in order to punish a principal offender, if the principal offender commences to commit a crime, it is possible to do so only when the principal offender commences to do so, and if the principal offender comes to a preliminary phase which does not reach the commencement of the principal offender, the principal offender cannot be punished as a principal offender unless the processing of the principal offender becomes a principal offender.

This is because, under the concept of the elements of a crime, an act of preliminary offense is unlimited and unlimited, and the act of a principal is unlimited and unlimited, and according to Article 28 of the Criminal Act, if a conspiracy or a preparatory act does not come to the commencement of the commission of a crime, it is prohibited from unreasonably analogy or expanded interpretation of the elements of a crime which may result in the punishment of a preliminary offense by prescribing that it shall not be punishable unless otherwise provided in the law, so it would be reasonable to say that the provisions that constitute a preliminary crime of the Criminal Code cannot be included in the independent concept of the elements of a crime should not be included in the independent concept of the crime. Therefore, in light of the spirit of the entire Criminal Code, it is reasonable to interpret that the establishment of such a principal crime is denied.

The appeal that the crime of robbery preliminary crime is an independent constituent element under the Criminal Code is not acceptable as the foregoing. Even if the judgment of the court below is somewhat different, it is justified in the conclusion that the crime of robbery preliminary crime is established as an independent constituent element under the Criminal Code, and it is groundless to discuss the appeal that is justified in the conclusion of denying the establishment of the crime of preliminary crime.

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

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)