Open Decision Ledger · Criminal & investigative procedure
Aggregate offence of membership and activity, and the original prosecution date
Supreme Court, Jan. 15, 2026, 2025Do14142 (judgment)
Case name: 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(단체등의구성·활동)·공갈미수·전기통신금융사기피해방지및피해금환급에관한특별법위반방조
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a person who joined a criminal organisation under Article 4(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts etc. went on to act as a member, are the two acts one continuing aggregate offence, and is the limitation period judged at the date of the original prosecution?
Holding
They are one offence, and the period is judged at the original prosecution. Both acts serve the creation and survival of the organisation, so unity and continuity of intent and the same legal interest are present, and the period runs from the end of the final criminal act. Defendant 4's conduct of May to June 2015 was still within ten years when the prosecution was brought on 11 April 2024, so the period had not expired.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
이러한 공소장 변경이 있는 경우에 공소시효의 완성 여부는 당초의 공소제기가 있었던 시점을 기준으로 판단하고 공소장 변경 시를 기준으로 삼을 것은 아니다.
Unofficial English translation
Where such an amendment of the indictment is made, whether the statute of limitations has been completed shall be determined on the basis of the time when the initial indictment was filed, and the time of the amendment of the indictment shall not be the basis.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고인 4에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 검사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below as to Defendant 4 is reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The prosecutor's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
또한 위 조항에서 말하는 범죄단체 구성원으로서의 활동이란 범죄단체의 내부 규율 및 통솔 체계에 따른 조직적·집단적 의사 결정에 기초하여 행하는 범죄단체의 존속·유지를 지향하는 적극적인 행위를 일컫는다.
Unofficial English translation
Furthermore, the activity as a member of a criminal organization referred to in the aforesaid provision means an active act directed toward the continued existence and maintenance of a criminal organization, performed on the basis of organizational and collective decision-making in accordance with the internal discipline and chain of command of the criminal organization.
Factors
- 양자는 모두 범죄단체의 생성 및 존속·유지를 도모하는, 범죄행위에 대한 일련의 예비·음모 과정에 해당한다는 점에서 범의의 단일성과 계속성을 인정할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 피해법익도 다르지 않다
- 포괄일죄의 공소시효는 최종의 범죄행위가 종료한 때로부터 진행하고
- 그 죄는 두 죄로 분리되지 않고 확정판결 후인 최종 범죄행위 시점에 완성된다
- 그 공소장변경허가 여부를 결정할 때는 포괄일죄를 구성하는 개개 공소사실별로 종전 것과의 동일성 여부를 따지기보다는 변경된 공소사실이 전체적으로 포괄일죄의 범주 내에 있는지
- 공소시효의 완성 여부는 당초의 공소제기가 있었던 시점을 기준으로 판단하고 공소장 변경 시를 기준으로 삼을 것은 아니다
Unofficial English translation
• Not only can the unity and continuity of intent be recognized in that both correspond to a series of preparatory and conspiratorial processes for criminal acts aimed at promoting the creation and the continued existence and maintenance of a criminal organization, but the protected legal interest is also no different
• the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive offense runs from the time when the final criminal act has been completed, and
• the offense is not separated into the two offenses and is completed at the time of the final criminal act, which follows the final and conclusive judgment
• when determining whether to permit such amendment of the indictment, rather than examining, for each individual fact of the crime constituting the single comprehensive offense, whether it is identical to the previous one, [what is examined is] whether the amended facts of the crime fall, as a whole, within the category of the single comprehensive offense
• whether the statute of limitations has been completed shall be determined on the basis of the time when the initial indictment was filed, and the time of the amendment of the indictment shall not be the basis
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2006도514 판결(공2006상, 988)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Do514 decided April 27, 2006 (Gong 2006 Sang, 988)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2009. 6. 11. 선고 2009도2337 판결, 대법원 2009. 9. 10. 선고 2008도10177 판결(공2009하, 1697) / [2][3] 대법원 2002. 10. 11. 선고 2002도2939 판결(공2002하, 2778) / [2] 대법원 2003. 8. 22. 선고 2002도5341 판결(공2003하, 1975) / [3] 대법원 2006. 4. 27. 선고 2006도514 판결(공2006상, 988)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the amended facts do not share the same legal interest or a single and continuous intent with the original charge, can the date of the original prosecution still fix the limitation period?
The Gwangju High Court's retrial on Defendant 4's part will show how the original-prosecution baseline works. Any amendment to Article 4(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Violent Acts etc. or Article 249(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, or a later decision altering that baseline, requires this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the amended facts do not share the same legal interest or a single and continuous intent with the original charge, can the date of the original prosecution still fix the limitation period?” vs Independent “What interruption in membership or organizational activity would break continuity of intent and create a separate offense?”
The primary asks which limitation reference date applies when added charges fall outside the original comprehensive offense, whereas the independent asks what interruption creates a separate offense.
이러한 공소장 변경이 있는 경우에 공소시효의 완성 여부는 당초의 공소제기가 있었던 시점을 기준으로 판단하고 공소장 변경 시를 기준으로 삼을 것은 아니다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Gwangju High Court, in its judgment of 18 August 2025 (Jeonju) 2025No42-1(separated), held that under Article 4(1)(iii) of the Act the statutory penalty is imprisonment of two years or more, so the limitation period is ten years under Article 249(1)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Joining is complete on joining and is instantaneous, so the period ran from 1 May 2015, the earliest favourable reading of conduct in May to June 2015. The charge was first added by the amendment application of 20 June 2025, more than ten years later, and it dismissed that charge on limitation grounds; it found the other charges unproved.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court found no error in those acquittals, including on the 'activity' count against Defendant 4. It held that where a continuing aggregate offence is at stake the expiry of the limitation period must be judged at the date of the original prosecution, and since the conduct was within ten years of the prosecution of 11 April 2024, no expiry occurred; the contrary holding misapprehended the law and affected the outcome. Because the membership count stands in a relation of a continuing aggregate offence with the 'activity' count acquitted below, the whole of the judgment as to Defendant 4 was reversed and remanded, and the prosecutor's remaining appeals were dismissed.
Distinguishing conditions
- An amended charge whose facts do not, taken as a whole, sit within the category of a continuing aggregate offence.
- Conduct that is not activity as a member, that is, a positive act aimed at the organisation's survival under its internal discipline and control.
- A case in which the final criminal act ended more than ten years before the original prosecution.
Record verification notes
Set the file against the date of the original prosecution, here 11 April 2024, and the ten-year period fixed by the statutory penalty under Article 4(1)(iii) of the Act and Article 249(1)(iii) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Confirm that the added count genuinely sits inside the continuing-offence category, since the whole of Defendant 4's part fell with it, and note that the remand returns the 'activity' count acquitted below for a fresh trial.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항에서 정한 범죄단체를 구성하거나 이에 가입한 자가 더 나아가 구성원으로 활동하는 경우, 포괄일죄의 관계에 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 포괄일죄의 공소시효 진행 시점(=최종의 범죄행위가 종료한 때) 및 포괄일죄로 되는 개개의 범죄행위가 다른 종류인 죄의 확정판결 전후에 걸쳐 행하여진 경우, 그 죄가 완성되는 시점(=확정판결 후 최종 범죄행위 시점) [3] 포괄일죄에서 공소장변경허가 여부를 결정하는 기준 및 포괄일죄에서 공소장 변경이 있는 경우, 공소시효의 완성 여부를 판단하는 기준 시점(=당초 공소제기가 있었던 시점)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether a person who has formed or joined a criminal organization as provided in Article 4 paragraph (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and further engages in activities as a member thereof stands in the relationship of a single comprehensive offense (affirmative) [2] The point at which the statute of limitations for a single comprehensive offense begins to run (= the time when the final criminal act has been completed) and, where individual criminal acts constituting a single comprehensive offense are committed before and after a final and conclusive judgment on an offense of a different type, the time when that offense is completed (= the time of the final criminal act after the final and conclusive judgment) [3] The criteria for determining whether to permit amendment of the indictment in a single comprehensive offense and, where the indictment is amended in a single comprehensive offense, the reference point for determining whether the statute of limitations has been completed (= the time when the initial indictment was filed)
Summary of the holding
[1] 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항은 그 법에 규정된 범죄행위를 목적으로 하는 단체를 구성하거나 이에 가입하는 행위 또는 구성원으로 활동하는 행위를 처벌하도록 정하고 있는데, 이는 구체적인 범죄행위의 실행 여부를 불문하고 그 범죄행위에 대한 예비·음모의 성격이 있는 범죄단체의 생성 및 존속 자체를 막으려는 데 입법 취지가 있다. 또한 위 조항에서 말하는 범죄단체 구성원으로서의 활동이란 범죄단체의 내부 규율 및 통솔 체계에 따른 조직적·집단적 의사 결정에 기초하여 행하는 범죄단체의 존속·유지를 지향하는 적극적인 행위를 일컫는다. 그런데 범죄단체의 구성이나 가입은 범죄행위의 실행 여부와 관계없이 범죄단체 구성원으로서의 활동을 예정하는 것이고, 범죄단체 구성원으로서의 활동은 범죄단체의 구성이나 가입을 당연히 전제로 하는 것이므로, 양자는 모두 범죄단체의 생성 및 존속·유지를 도모하는, 범죄행위에 대한 일련의 예비·음모 과정에 해당한다는 점에서 범의의 단일성과 계속성을 인정할 수 있을 뿐만 아니라 피해법익도 다르지 않다. 따라서 범죄단체를 구성하거나 이에 가입한 자가 더 나아가 구성원으로 활동하는 경우 이는 포괄일죄의 관계에 있다고 보는 것이 타당하다. [2] 포괄일죄의 공소시효는 최종의 범죄행위가 종료한 때로부터 진행하고, 포괄일죄로 되는 개개의 범죄행위가 다른 종류인 죄의 확정판결 전후에 걸쳐 행하여진 때에는 그 죄는 두 죄로 분리되지 않고 확정판결 후인 최종 범죄행위 시점에 완성된다. [3] 포괄일죄에서는 공소장변경을 통한 종전 공소사실의 철회 및 새로운 공소사실의 추가가 가능한 점에 비추어 그 공소장변경허가 여부를 결정할 때는 포괄일죄를 구성하는 개개 공소사실별로 종전 것과의 동일성 여부를 따지기보다는 변경된 공소사실이 전체적으로 포괄일죄의 범주 내에 있는지, 즉 단일하고 계속된 범의하에 동종의 범행을 반복하여 행하고 그 피해법익도 동일한 경우에 해당한다고 볼 수 있는지에 초점을 맞추어야 한다. 이러한 공소장 변경이 있는 경우에 공소시효의 완성 여부는 당초의 공소제기가 있었던 시점을 기준으로 판단하고 공소장 변경 시를 기준으로 삼을 것은 아니다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고인 4에 대한 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 광주고등법원에 환송한다. 검사의 나머지 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below as to Defendant 4 is reversed, and the case as to this part is remanded to the Gwangju High Court. The prosecutor's remaining final appeal is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
[1] 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제4조 제1항 / [2] 형법 제37조, 형사소송법 제252조 제1항 / [3] 형법 제37조, 형사소송법 제249조, 제298조
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger