A. The intent of the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the co-principal, and the criminal responsibility of a person who is not involved in the conduct

B. The meaning of an organization of crime under Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(c) Whether a sentence of imprisonment exceeding 15 years may be imposed where a sentence of imprisonment for life is mitigated (negative);

A. The conspiracy, which is a subjective element of a co-principal, is sufficient if there is a combination of intent to jointly commit a crime among co-offenders, and is held liable for the other co-offenders' acts even if they do not participate in the conduct so long as such conspiracy was made.

(b) The crime organizations provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act mean the organized body with a continuous and minimum command system, which is composed of many and specified persons, with the common purpose of committing any crime provided for in the same Act;

C. Article 55(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that when a person reduces life imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for life, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than seven years. The main sentence of Article 42 of the Criminal Act provides that imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for life shall be either for life or for a limited term and for a limited term of not less than one month but not more than 15 years. Thus, a person may not be punished by imprisonment with prison labor exceeding 1

(a) Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Do765 delivered on June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1636), 90Do602 delivered on September 28, 1990 (Gong1990, 2243), 92Do1244 delivered on August 18, 1992 (Gong1992, 279). Supreme Court Decision 91Do1270 delivered on July 26, 1991 (Gong191, 2281), 91Do2569 delivered on December 10, 191 (Gong192, 559), 91Do2397 delivered on December 24, 191 (Gong1992, 700), 190Do3939 delivered on September 13, 199 (Gong192, 193).

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants

Attorney Seo Sung-py et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 92No2185 delivered on August 27, 1992

The part of the lower judgment against Defendant 2 and the part against Defendant 3 shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All appeals filed by Defendant 1, 4, 5, and 6 are dismissed.

The number of detention days after the appeal shall be 25 days each included in the original sentence (in the case of defendants 1 and 6, the punishment for the first crime at the time of the original adjudication) of the above defendants.

The grounds of appeal by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, and the defense counsel by Defendant 3 and 6 and defense counsel by Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5 are examined.

As to murder and bodily injury

In light of the records adopted by the court below, it is proper that the court below acknowledged the fact that the defendant 1, 2 conspiredd to injure the victim 1, and the defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 conspired to injure the victim 1, and the defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 agreed to kill the 1, and Defendant 2 attempted to kill the 1, the 2nd distribution order of the victim 1, and Defendant 3, 4, and 5 got the knife over the knife and knife the parts of the knife and the knife part of the knife and the knife part of the victim, and the 1, the knife caused the death of the knife due to the knife of the knife and the part of the knife and the part of the knife shall not be found to have been erroneous in violation of the rules of evidence.

As the court below has duly decided, if Defendant 2 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife,

The conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the co-principal, is sufficient if there is a combination of the intent to jointly commit the crime among the co-offenders, and even if such conspiracy has been conducted, even if it is not involved in the conduct of the crime, the criminal liability is imposed on the other co-offenders. As duly determined by the court below, Defendant 1, and 2 conspired to inflict bodily injury on the victim 1, and further, Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 conspired to inflict bodily injury on the victim 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below, and Defendant 2, except Defendant 1, and Defendant 2, etc., other than Defendant 1, committed the act to inflict bodily injury on the victim 1, and come to inflict bodily injury beyond that of Defendant 1, the court below's judgment to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law as a misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

All arguments are without merit.

As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (criminal organization, joining or injuring)

Examining the evidence relations selected by the court below in light of the records, it is proper for the court below to recognize that Defendant 6 and Defendant 1 joined the above organization as a acting member and that Defendant 6 sustained the victim 2, as well as Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4 and Nonindicted 1, Defendant 6 and the Joint Defendant 1, Nonindicted 2, 3, and Nonindicted 4, and 5, and that Defendant 1 and the Joint Defendant 2, 3, 4, and Nonindicted 6, 7, 8, and 9 are criminal organizations with acting members, and that Defendant 1, 2, 4, and 5 conspired with the above organization, and that Defendant 6 inflicted injury on Defendant 2, such as the theory of facts in the process of fact-finding. There is no violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding.

The criminal organization provided for in Article 4 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act refers to a organized body with a continuous and minimum system with a view to committing a crime provided for in the same Act, which is organized with a common purpose. As duly determined by the court below, Defendant 6, etc., by exercising appropriate tangible power, such as assault, intimidation, damage to property, etc. from a daily entertainment establishment in the Yanan-si in the Yanan-si, and interfered with money and valuables by taking advantage of such adequate force as violence, threat, damage to property, etc., and for the purpose of overcoming the leading power of the Japanese violent world, Nonindicted 1, 6, etc. as executive officers, and Defendant 1, etc., as stated in its decision, have formed an organization with 20 to 30 persons, lodging together with 20 to 30,000 won, and have received money and valuables each month from an entertainment establishment in the form of monthly payment from an entertainment establishment, and have raised money and valuables by purchasing it with a name.

All arguments are without merit.

On the issue of unfair sentencing

In light of the records, the court below's determination of the punishment against the defendant 4 and 5, which maintained the first instance court at the time of 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor, is deemed to be extremely unfair, and therefore, the argument about this issue cannot be accepted.

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below's sentencing against the defendants 2 and 3 was decided by the defendant 2 and 3, and the defendant 2 and 3 selected each type of life imprisonment among the prescribed types of crimes of murder. Since the crime of murder and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act in the judgment of the above defendants are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the above defendants should be punished as imprisonment for life in accordance with Articles 38 (1) 1 and 50 of the Criminal Act. However, the above defendants should be punished as imprisonment for life in accordance with Articles 53 and 55 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act on the ground that there are reasons for considering the above defendants' circumstances, and then the above defendants were punished as imprisonment for 20

However, Article 55(1)2 of the Criminal Act provides that when a person reduces life imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for life, he/she shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than seven years. The main sentence of Article 42 of the Criminal Act provides that imprisonment with or without prison labor for life or for a limited term shall be either for life or for a limited term of not less than one month but not more than 15 years. Thus, in cases where a person selects life imprisonment and reduces quantity, he/she may not be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for more than 15 years (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do1428, Oct.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to discretionary mitigation of imprisonment for life, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant 2 and the part against the defendant 3 shall be reversed and remanded to the court below. The remaining defendants' appeals shall be dismissed without merit, and 25 days of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence of the above defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.