1. As to the assertion that the facts charged are not specified

The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the object of a trial against the court, to specify the scope of defense against the defendant, and to facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Thus, considering the nature of the indicted crime, it is sufficient to specify the date, time, place, method, and purpose of the public prosecution to the extent that it can distinguish the facts constituting the cause of the indictment from other facts, and even if some of it is somewhat unclear, the facts charged can be specified along with the stated other matters. Thus, if the exercise of the defense right of the defendant is not impeded, it does not affect the validity of the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do4415, Feb. 23, 2001

In the facts charged of this case, the place where the Defendant killed the victim is located in Busan Franchiscis and the method of killing the victim is an influence is identical to the allegations in the grounds of appeal. However, the criminal time is specified from 02:30 on June 17, 2010 to 04:00, and the criminal motive of the Defendant’s research and the circumstance in which the victim was examined and how the victim was contacted with the victim were stated in detail, so the facts charged of murder in this case can be specified. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there is any impediment to the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, and thus

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the facts charged through incomplete hearing or hearing

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value, which can lead a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the defendant's interest should be determined even if there is a suspicion of guilt. However, such conviction should not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, but it can be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates empirical and logical rules. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a result of comprehensive examination under mutual relation, if it is deemed that it does not exist as a whole, even if it does not have full probative value as to the crime. The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of a fact inconsistent with the facts that cannot be found in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and such doubt should be based on this reasoning in relation to the fact finding favorable to the defendant, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a possibility or reasonable doubt based on abstract evidence or abstract evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014).

B. After compiling the evidence duly admitted, the lower court found the facts as indicated in its reasoning: ① appears to have been sufficiently motiveed for murdering the victim; ②) concentrated on multiple life insurance policies with the Defendant as the insured while paying a large amount of monthly insurance premium from the time of the instant case before and after three months ago; ③ was the only person who had planned to kill the victim while leaving Daegu; ③ was the victim’s death before and after the victim’s death; there was no possibility that the victim might have committed suicide; ④ It was difficult for the Defendant to find out the fact that the victim could have been killed with the victim’s body because it was difficult for him/her to view the fact that the victim could have been killed with the victim’s physical condition at the time of his/her death, and that there was no trace of external force after the victim’s death; ④ it was difficult for him/her to find out the fact that the victim was killed with the victim’s physical condition at the time of the instant crime, and that the Defendant had been snicked with the victim’s physical condition at the time of his/her death.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the proof of facts charged, etc.,

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)