Whether an act of making contact between a suspect and making it easy to escape constitutes a crime of attempted escape of a criminal (affirmative)

In a case where a criminal under Article 151 of the Criminal Code has been escaped, it refers to any act that makes it difficult or impossible to arrest, detect or detect the Constitution by any means other than concealment. Therefore, if the criminal defendant contacts the criminal suspect who attempted murder with the upper party and makes the criminal suspect escape easily, the crime of attempted murder is also applicable.

Article 151 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant 1 and 3 others

Prosecutor (Defendant 1, 4) and Defendant 2,3,4

Seoul High Court Decision 90No2258 delivered on September 20, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

As regards Defendant 2 and 3, 90 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the calculation of the original sentence.

1. We examine the prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the court below's decision on the charge of attempted murder against Defendant 1 and Defendant 4 is just and acceptable, and there is no evidence of the crime since it is not acknowledged that the same Defendants conspired and participated in the crime by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3, etc., and there is no violation of the rules of evidence.

Since Defendant 1 or 4 denies the contents of each protocol of interrogation of the judicial police assistant, even if there are some statements that correspond to the facts charged, it cannot be used as evidence of guilt.

In addition, even if there are circumstances such as the theory of lawsuit in this case, it is difficult to find the guilty verdict of this part of the facts charged. Thus, it cannot be said that the court below erred in holding that there is no reasonable doubt even if considering the various facts presented by the court below.

The issue is without merit, which is the fact-finding court's exclusive authority.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel (Korean national or private ships and private ships) together.

The court below's finding of facts as to Defendant 2 is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the limits of the rules of evidence, and the court below's action against Defendant 2 as an accomplice of attempted murder is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to attempted murder.

In addition, in light of the various circumstances that form the conditions of sentencing through the record, it cannot be said that there is a significant reason to recognize that the sentencing of the court below against the same accused is extremely unfair. Therefore, the arguments are without merit.

3. Defendant 3 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

Upon examining the records, the fact-finding by the court below with respect to Defendant 3 is also acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, considering the various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, it cannot be said that the sentencing of the court below constitutes a case where there is a significant reason to recognize that the sentencing of the court below is extremely unfair. Both of the arguments are without merit.

4. Defendant 4 and his defense counsel’s grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the records, the court below is also justified in recognizing the defendant's criminal escape, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

In a case where a criminal provided in Article 151 of the Criminal Act leads to any act that makes it difficult or impossible to arrest, detect, or detect the Constitution by means other than concealment. As such, if the criminal defendant contacts the non-indicted who is the criminal suspect for attempted murder with the defendant 1 and makes him/her talk with him/her as stated in the reasoning, and if he/she makes it easy for him/her to escape, the criminal shall also be deemed to constitute a crime of attempted murder.

The paper argues that the defendant merely recommended the receipt of a person from the non-indicted, and argues that the fact-finding, which is the exclusive authority of the court below, is erroneous, or that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of capital flight, based on the facts that the court below did not recognize, and thus, cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and for defendants 2 and 3, part of the number of detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)