When the Defendant experienced economic difficulties around August 10, 200, the Defendant got out of around August 10, 200, he was able to take money from taxi drivers to raise living expenses, and he was able to prepare a knife knife (25 cm in knife length) containing abnormals who were living in the knife warehouse 1) and knife in the knife in the knife-si D, and prepared a way to commit the crime in advance.

On the same day, the Defendant was driving at the back seat of G-si operated by the victim F (the 42 years of age) who is a taxi engineer in the vicinity of the E-Housing in the following day, and was driving in the H in the direction of the next H in the following city. At around 02:07 to 02:10 on the same day, the Defendant demanded the above knife knife knife knife in the part of the victim.

At around 03:20 on the same day, the victim was killed of low blood shock shocks caused by the knife knife knife knife knife, etc. of the victim in the above knife, and the defendant died of the victim by knife knife knife knife knife.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim in the course of taking the victim's property by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness I, J, K, and L (Provided, That part of each legal statement of witness J, K, and L concerning the contents of which from the accused is the statement of the contents of which from the accused shall be excluded);

1. Each statement made by the witness N,O, P, and Q in the third trial records (excluding the part on which M contains the statement made by the Defendant regarding the contents of the statement made by the Defendant in each statement made by the witness O, P, and Q in the third trial records);

1. Results of on-site inspections conducted by this court;

1. An interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (Article 1-5);

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of statement about R, S, and T (Provided, That the part of the prosecutor's protocol of statement about R, the contents of which are about M from the accused, shall be excluded);

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of M (Article 1-4);

1. Each police statement of M, U, V, and W;

1. A report on the results of execution of a search and seizure warrant, and an internal map of M and an on-site photograph;

1. Records of seizure (M tamp lease seizure) and the list of seizure;

1. He on-site investigation (investigative records No. 2593-2594 pages);

1. Protocol of hearing X statements of autopsy, Y professor interview report of legal advisory advisers, protocol of interview with professor Z of legal science, reply (Y of professor);

1. Investigation report (B) and one copy of the knife type used by the suspect B as at the time of the instant case, investigation report (on the spot and evidence-related articles), and one photo description, investigation report (on the face of the 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 knife knife) and one photo knife knife knife knife k knife knife k k kn), investigation report, etc.

1. Written decision on commencing a retrial and decision (AD4);

1. A death diagnosis report, autopsy and appraisal report, table of request for appraisal (as of the investigation record No. 2037-2045), appraisal report (as of the investigation record No. 2067-207 pages), inquiry statement, interview report, photograph, autopsy and appraisal report;

1. A tachograph (a investigative record No. 429-431, 559-562 pages), an emergency room, and a medical record;

1. A photograph of the model of a knife that MM witness;

【Judgment on admissibility of hearsay evidence of each of the above evidence】

1. The witness J and K's statement containing the defendant's statement, the police's protocol of statement concerning M and the police's protocol of interrogation of suspect's suspect (Article 1-4), judgment on admissibility of evidence 5);

A. Applicable provisions and relevant legal principles

1) Of the witness J and K’s each legal statement made by the Defendant who is a police officer investigating the Defendant, the part containing the Defendant’s statement may be admitted as evidence only when it is proved that the Defendant’s statement was made in a particularly reliable state (Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). “When the statement was made in a particularly reliable state” as referred to in Article 316(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to a case where there is little room for any falsity to the effect that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and there is a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or ariness of the statement (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5948, May 24, 2012).

2) The statement of statement or protocol prepared by the police as to facts experienced by M is a protocol containing the statement of a person other than the defendant (Article 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act). If a person who needs to make a statement on the date of trial is unable to make a statement on the date of trial due to death, etc., such protocol may be admitted as evidence if it is proved that the statement or protocol was made in particularly reliable circumstances (Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act). "When the statement or protocol was made under particularly reliable circumstances" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false entry in the statement or protocol or document preparation, and there is no specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or ariness of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 2006). Accordingly, in order to recognize admissibility of evidence, it is difficult for the court to see whether there is a lack of sufficient evidence or ariness in the protocol formation of evidence beyond 200.

3) Furthermore, the protocol of statement of M prepared by the police and the protocol of interrogation of a suspect containing a statement made by the defendant is a protocol in which the protocol containing a statement made by a person other than the defendant contains a full text of the statement made by the defendant, and its admissibility is acknowledged pursuant to Articles 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Furthermore, its admissibility is exceptionally acknowledged when the protocol satisfies the conditions under Article 316(1) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do5948, May 24, 2012).

4) In addition, “a particularly reliable state” falls under the requirement for the admissibility of evidence, and thus, the prosecutor specifically asserts and prove the existence of the evidence, but this is related to the facts in the lawsuit, so it is sufficient for the prosecutor to freely prove it without any strict proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012).

B. Determination

1) According to the investigation report (Attachment, etc. of the death report, etc. onM), death report, and written evidence autopsy report, it may be recognized that M died on December 5, 2012. Accordingly, each of the above evidence may be admissible as evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule in cases where it is acknowledged that the statement made by the defendant, M was made in an investigative agency, and the statement made by the defendant to M was made in a particularly reliable state in accordance with the above legal principles.

2) First, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, whether the statement made by the Defendant and M in an investigative agency was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and the statement made by the Defendant and M in an investigative agency is deemed to have the specific and external circumstances that sufficiently ensure the credibility or voluntariness of the statement even without undergoing verification through cross-examination, etc. in the court.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the statement in the investigation agency of the defendant and M was conducted under particularly reliable circumstances. Thus, the witness J and K's each legal statement of the defendant, the police's statement of the defendant, and the statement of the part directly experienced by M among the police interrogation protocol of the defendant and the police interrogation protocol of the defendant and M are admissible as evidence.

가) 2003. 6. 초경 AF 등지에서 발생한 택시강도 사건을 수사하던 AF경찰서 소속 경찰관 J, K 등은 "2000년 여름 익산에서 발생한 택시강도 살인사건의 진범이 검거되지 아니한 채 익산에서 생활하고 있는데, M이라는 사람이 이에 관하여 알고 있다. "라는 취지의 첩보를 접하고 이 사건 수사를 시작하게 되었다. 당시 강력반장으로서 이 사건 수사를 주도한 증인 J은 이 사건을 처음 조사하기 시작할 당시의 경위와 심경에 관하여 "당시 이미 다른 사람이 이 사건 범행을 한 것으로 유죄 확정 판결을 받고 복역 중이었기 떄문에 진범이 따로 있다는 사실이 밝혀질 경우의 사회적 파장 등이 우려되어 섣불리 수사를 시작할 수 없었다. 그런데 M으로부터 전해들은 이 사건과 관련된 진술이 의외로 구체적이고 생생하여 진범이 따로 있다면 진실을 밝혀야 한다는 책임감이 들었고, 이에 피고인을 찾아가 이 사건 범행을 한 것인지 물어보았다. 만약 피고인이 범행을 극구 부인한다면 사건을 내사종결할 수도 있었기에 증인은 내심 피고인 이 끝까지 부인해 주기를 바라는 마음도 있었는데, 피고인이 처음에 잠깐 부인하더니 경찰관이 M의 이야기를 꺼내자마자 곧바로 범행을 순순히 인정하기에 피고인을 긴급체 포하여 경찰서로 데리고 왔다."라는 취지로 증언하였다. 즉 이 사건 수사를 시작할 당시 경찰관들은 오히려 진범이 따로 있는 것이 아니기를 바라는 심정으로 신중하고 조심스럽게 수사에 착수하였던 것으로 보이는바, 수사기관이 M, 피고인을 상대로 무리하게 진술을 이끌어낼 이유가 없어 보인다.

B) According to the testimony of the J, when the defendant who was arrested on June 5, 2003 arrived at the police station, the chief of the police station held the defendant and M as the chief of the police station at the time, and held that the defendant and M as the chief of the police station at the time, "I am the defendant and M as the defendant. I do not say that it is true that the defendant is not the defendant, even though other person is not the defendant in this case, and that he is not the defendant, but the defendant is not a criminal defendant." However, the defendant made a false confession that he is a criminal defendant, and the defendant made a confession that he is "I am more and more. However, I think that it is correct for the person who enters the police station on behalf of him," and the main investigation on the defendant and M was commenced.

C) The first investigation on M was conducted in the AF Police Station, which is not a AF Police Station, as a witness, in terms of M, which was conducted in accordance with the request of M to refuse to undergo an investigation conducted by the police station.

In addition, the Defendant and M had sufficient time of interview with the family members prior to the investigation as the suspect, and during the investigation, an investigation was conducted in a comfortable atmosphere, such as providing meals with investigators or giving tobacco smoking upon request. At the time of the examination, police officers recorded the investigation process to secure the decentralization of the statement, and identified the facts based on the Defendant and M’s voluntary statement. After the completion of the investigation, M stated as follows: “The Defendant and M must have read the Defendant and M’s voluntary statement at the end of the interrogation protocol of suspect interrogation that he had to read and voluntarily surrenders B at that time, and it is difficult to say that there are many times.”

D) On June 7, 2003, M was released on June 7, 2003, M, his father, who was his father, saying, “I are suffering from stress by repeatedly asking that all of the police were true.”

3) Next, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, whether the statement made by the defendant in relation to the defendant's crime against M was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and whether the defendant's statement made to M was made under the circumstances acknowledged as evidence, it is reasonable to deem that there was a specific and external circumstance to guarantee the credibility or arbitability of the contents of the statement, and that the statement made by the defendant to M was made under particularly reliable circumstances. Thus, the part of the police's statement of M and the protocol of interrogation of the police's suspect involved in the defendant's

A) The Defendant and M were in a middle school dong and a middle school dong, and they were in a friendly way to resolve board and lodging at each other’s house without a smnasium from middle school. While the Defendant left his parent’s business failure and separate living at a middle school, there was no family to believe that he was difficult to contact with his parents. The Defendant, who had lived without a certain occupation, was living in a middle school with M’s house every day at the same time as M’s house at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and was living in a little amount of money collected from M’s father’s father’s Do and M’s Do. The Defendant appears to have no friendly tool to maintain a deep friendly relationship other than M and R in terms of the nature of the horse, and therefore, M was the most nearest person to the Defendant when the Defendant’s body was important at the time of the instant crime.

B) At the time of the crime of this case, M was presumed to have returned N to inhale M and gas, but the Defendant and M were not able to inhale gas or mainboard at the time of the crime of this case, and it was called that the Defendant was called to go to N and to go to N and to go to his own house. However, M was immediately returned to N without any explanation immediately after the Defendant was delivered to the Defendant. However, it was presumed that there was a talk that the Defendant and M were to go to a tension without any other person (the Defendant was returned to inhale M and gas or mainboard; however, the Defendant and M were deemed to have not been able to inhale gas or mainboard at the time of the crime of this case, and if the Defendant and M were to take to inhale gas or mainboard, there was no reason to go to go back N with the Defendant and personnel management.)

다) M은 "피고인은 원래 차분하고 쉽게 놀라는 성격이 아님에도 이 사건이 일어난 새벽에 자신을 찾아왔을 때에는 겁을 많이 먹어 얼굴이 질려있고, 땀도 많이 흘리는 상태였다.", "피고인이 씻고 온 후 밖에서 웅성웅성하는 소리가 들려 창문을 조금만 열고 집 앞 공원 쪽을 바라보니 의경들이 공원 주변을 맴돌고 있어 창문을 닫고 피고인에게 '의경들이 니가 사용한 칼을 찾는가 보다.'라고 말하자 피고인이 아무런 말을 하지 않았다.", "이 사건 발생 이후 피고인과 자신은 열흘 정도 집 밖에 나가지 않고 함께 생활했는데, 방송 등을 통해 이 사건 수사가 진행되고 있다는 사실을 알고는 피고인이 내내 식은땀을 흘리고 안절부절 못하면서 불안해하였다."라고 진술하였다.

2. Judgment on admissibility of the part of the witness L’s legal statement, the witness Q’s statement in the third protocol of trial, and the prosecutor’s protocol on R’s protocol on facts that each M directly experienced.

A. Applicable provisions and relevant legal principles

1) A statement or a statement containing M’s statement concerning facts directly experienced by each M in the third protocol of trial, among the statements made by a witness Q, shall be admissible as evidence only when it is proved that the statement made by a person other than the defendant is the content of the statement made by another person other than the defendant on the date of trial, and the person making the original statement cannot make a statement due to such reasons as death, etc., and that the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances (Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

2) In addition, among the prosecutor’s protocol of statement concerning R, a statement whose content is M’s statement concerning facts directly experienced by M is that of other person other than the defendant, and its admissibility is acknowledged pursuant to Articles 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act. In addition, the protocol of statement concerning R is admissible in cases where its admissibility is recognized pursuant to the provisions of Article 312 through 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and its admissibility is exceptionally acknowledged when conditions are met (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1172, Feb. 26, 2009).

3) As stated in Article 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, “when the statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances,” there is little room for false intervention that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state, and the case where specific and external circumstances exist to guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do159, Mar. 10, 200) and “ particularly reliable state” constitute the requirement for admissibility of evidence, the prosecutor specifically asserts and certifies the existence of the statement, but this is sufficient for free proof without any strict proof, since it is related to the facts in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2937, Jul. 26, 2012).

B. Determination

1) As seen earlier, M has died, the prosecutorial protocol on the witness R was prepared in accordance with the due process and method, and R was present in this court as a witness and recognized its authenticity.

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, whether M made a statement made to L, Q and R under particularly reliable circumstances, and the above evidence is admissible as evidence since it is reasonable to deem that M was made under particularly reliable circumstances, and that M was made under the circumstances in which M’s statement made to L, Q and R was made under particularly reliable circumstances. Thus, each of the above evidence is admissible as an exception to expert evidence.

A) The Defendant, M, and R were in a middle school-affiliated relationship with the Defendant during the middle school. In particular, R retired from a middle school with the Defendant, and was close to the Defendant, such as by living together with the Defendant during one-time period at the Defendant’s home. Moreover, M, R, and Q were very close to the Defendant around the day of the instant crime. They seem to have maintained a good-quality relationship without any change even around the day of the instant crime. They appear to have maintained the instant crime. M did not have any motive to gather the Defendant against A self-R and Q as robbery, or to see the Defendant as a robbery.

B) M told the instant case at the location along with the Defendant by having the Defendant, in particular, pro-friendly relationship with the Defendant at his own house during the new wall time during which the date of the instant crime was not elapsed. The L stated to the effect that, with respect to the present situation, “h was of a pro-Japanese character, but was not in the atmosphere at the time when I talk about the instant case, and the Defendant was able to do so in a hole different from that of the ordinary world.” As the Defendant did not refusal to do so, it was called that he would not vain, thereby going back from the room of the gold bank M.”

C) Unlike the time when M speaks to R, M had no direct relationship with the Defendant, and friendly Q with it discussed the instant case from AD from B in 2000 to spring in 201, which was after AD was identified as an offender for the instant crime. Moreover, during a period of more than 10 years immediately before AD died in 2012, Q voluntarily repeated talked about the instant case. As to the attitude of M as to the instant case, “M is good, but it is not a good character, and it is not a person who has to speak as a serious work, such as the instant case. It was several times to say that M did not have a fright at the time of the instant case, but it appears that M did not speak to the other people.”

D) L is a her mother of Q, who followed Q and Q, “T” at the time of the instant occurrence. L was talking about the instant case several times at the inn place in which Q was born from M, but it was stated that M was not a usual vegetative, and that M was not the same at the time of the end of the instant case.

E) Meanwhile, at the investigation agency and this court, the women-friendly job offersO, who attended with M, stated that "M shown the knife at the bottom of the knife, and talked about the instant case," "I am 'I am 'I am 'I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I do.....

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 338 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment for Arms)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Article 53 of the Criminal Act; Article 55(1)2 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

No defendant has committed any crime described in the judgment.

However, at H, the Defendant frequently visited the house of M in which he was friendly by his father at his house when the murder case of taxi robbery occurred. From his father, the Defendant listened to his son’s words that he had been examined, and divided the background, method, etc. of the crime along with M as to the background, etc. of the crime. However, for M to his son, he talked that the Defendant had committed the crime based on his Defendant and his tending talking with his father, and the Defendant was also trying to talk about M as such, as well as bringing about knife to M in order to add his sense of mind to M’s horses. However, as a result, the Defendant was subject to the investigation by being identified as a criminal of murder of taxi robbery, the Defendant was divorced at the time of his divorce, and the Defendant did not suffer any pain from the Defendant and his parents, and the Defendant did not suffer any pain and injury to the Defendant and his parents.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the above evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion cannot be accepted since the fact that the defendant committed the same crime as the stated in the judgment is sufficiently recognized.

A. The police officer J who investigated the defendant testified that the defendant was a witness in this court and that the defendant testified in the police investigation as follows.

"At the time of committing a crime, the knife knife knife knife knife in the warehouse was used from those who sell health food to M with no money at the time, was put in the house. At first, the knife knife knife knife was used in the warehouse. At the time of committing a crime, the 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 knif.

And the police officer K testified that he was a witness in this court and that the defendant made a statement as follows at the time.

"Along with money, kn't seem to have been frighten in the front of another victim when knife knife on the back of the victim's taxi, and the knife was displayed on the knife, and the knife was displayed at the end after the crime."

B. M shall be examined from the police as a witness, from 1 to 4 times, as a suspect, and made a statement as follows.

① At one’s own house of the new wall in 2000, N was located at N’s house (AH apartment, present AI apartment complex) located at a distance of ten minutes from the Doroth to the 10th, but the Defendant sent N’s house by introducing N’s friendship by inserting phone to N. The Defendant entered the house and sent N’s house. The Defendant was in front of the third floor door door door, and the Defendant entered N’s house as follows: “The Defendant was in front of the third floor door, and the Defendant was in front of N’s door.”

② "방의 불을 켜고 보니 피고인의 상의 앞부분에 피가 묻어 있고 피고인은 긴장된 표정으로 얼굴에 땀을 흘리고 있었다. 피고인은 당시 여름용 얇은 긴팔 남방과, 펭귄 모양의 마크가 새겨져 있는 '먼싱'이라는 브랜드의 추리닝 바지를 입고 있었다."

③ After being aware of the Defendant’s non-person, the Defendant sent money without getting the first taxi to see “the first taxi” and sent money to the Defendant, and the second taxi was set up at the lower seat of the si and then came to have no money. The knife in the knife first reaches one knife and has reached several times, and the number of times has reached several times. As no money is in the situation of passage, it was said that the Defendant escaped from the park located between the bus stop and the AJ apartment by leaving the knife.”

④ Corresponding from the Defendant’s knife, knife the knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife, knife. The knife ordinarily used in the home where the knife length is at least 25cc in the box of the paper material. The knife knife was displayed, and the knife was asked on the knife part of the knife, but the knife knife was knife. The knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

⑤ "사건 당일 밖에서 웅성거리는 소리가 나 창문을 약간 열고 공원 쪽을 바라보니 경찰들이 수색을 하고 있었고, 같은 날 저녁 무렵 아버지가 들어와서 '이 앞에서 살인사건이 났으니 밤에 돌아다니지 말라.'라고 하여 택시기사가 사망한 사실을 알게 되었다. 이 사건이 발생한 지 보름 정도 지나 AE다방 오토맨이 범인으로 잡혔다고 말을 듣고 황당하여 피고인에게 '너에게는 천만다행인 일인지는 모르겠지만 오토맨에게는 참 재수 없다. 어떻게 네가 아닌 오토맨이 범인으로 잡혀갔는지 모르겠다.'라고 하자, 피고인이 이에 대하여는 아무런 대답을 하지 않고 '빨리 잊어버리고 싶은데 머리에 맴 돈다.'라고 하였다. 그리고 피고인에게 '택시에서 지문이라도 나오면 어떻게 하냐.'라고 하였더니 피고인이 '택시라서 여러 사람이 타고 내리는데 지문이야 나오겠느냐.'라는 대화를 나누었고, 피고인이 '택시기사가 비명 지르는 소리가 생각나 괴롭다.'라는 말을 하기도 하였다."

C. The above statements by the Defendant and M were born in the main parts of the circumstances before and after the commission of the crime, such as the background, method, situation before and after the commission of the crime, etc., and the details thereof are natural and reasonable from time, location, and time and place. Furthermore, the above statements were clearly and consistently made in the course of investigation conducted five times (one time for investigation of witnesses, four times for investigation of the suspect) until they reverse the statement to the effect that the Defendant did not have committed the instant crime.

The Defendant and M’s above police statements were made three years after the occurrence of the instant case, and the Defendant and M were deemed to have never had any opportunity to talk with each other on the instant case before the Defendant and M made a statement at the police. However, the specific and major parts are consistent with each other. According to the Defendant’s assertion, two persons, who did not directly experience the instant case, were fully memoryed at the time of the lapse of three years, and were made a consistent statement in most of the key parts or characteristic parts. It is consistent with the empirical rule to view that it is close to impossible.

In addition, the statement between the defendant and M includes a part that seems to be difficult to make a statement from a person who is not a person who directly experienced but a person, that is, the part that "a knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife with the bones." The statement about the offender's physical sense, the waiver of the first crime, and the network theory, which eventually include a majority of the unique information of this case exceeding the typical information that can be commonly used in the murder case of taxi robbery, such as the statement about the process of causing the second crime.

(d) The statements of the Defendant and M are consistent with the testimony of other witnesses as follows:

1) N as a witness in this court and “N had the witness’s house at the new wall time around the day of the instant crime”, and “N had the phone from M to M with M. The phone. Around the day of the instant crime, M returned to a mixed person’s house because M was her friendship and talking with the witness who was waiting at his own house and returned to the mixed person’s house at one time.” Since that day, M did not have any contact with M during one year.” Although N was unable to accurately associate with M at the time of making a statement at an investigative agency, it was impossible for M to accurately express the foregoing time at the time of making a statement at the time of the statement at the investigation agency, but it was only one day after M’s birth to M’s house, and it was consistent with M’s new statement at the time of the instant crime after M’s escape, and it was consistent with M’s new statement at the time of the instant crime. After this, N’s statement after this, it was recognized that M’s own statement or statement during the instant crime.

2) At the time of the crime of this case, Mackn's statement was made by the prosecutor to the effect that Mackn's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife.

3) 피고인의 동생인 I은 이 법정에 증인으로 나와 "양쪽에 어깨 끈이 있는 곤색 학생용 가방을 가지고 있었는데, 이 사건 범행 무렵에는 자신이 사용하지 않고 집에 놓아두었다. 집에 먼싱 브랜드의 추리닝도 있었다."라고 진술하였는바, "동생이 쓰던 책가방에 칼을 넣어가지고 나왔다."라는 피고인의 경찰에서의 진술, "당시 피고인이 펭귄 모양이 그려져 있는 '먼싱'이라는 브랜드의 추리닝을 입고 검은색 학생용 가방에 칼을 넣어 왔다."라는 M의 진술과도 일치한다.

E. According to the result of autopsy, the victim is a man in height of 168cc and 78cc and the body weight. According to the result of autopsy, it is observed that the victim's main body is composed of 168cc and pleat on the right shoulder and pleat, 8 in the right shoulder, 1 in the right shoulder, 1 in the right shoulder, 1 in the upper part, 3 in the upper part, 4, 5 in the upper part, and 1 in the upper part. In addition to the above damage that is biased on the right side, the victim's own body is not observed, and it is observed that the victim's main body is formed on the right shoulder and shoulder part, and that the victim's right side is cut by a bit 2-3 in the upper part.

With respect to the result of autopsy against the victim, the legal experts presented the opinion that "if the above damage suffered by the victim was caused by a scambly and unilaterally by an attack from the back of the victim, and the location of the main window appears to be the knife part under the right part of the knife. When cutting by a knife 2-3 knife, such as the victim, the perpetrator can be said to be the knife of the knife, and if the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife with the victim, the knife knife knife knife knife knife."

The type of the crime that can be presumed to be the victim's damaged part and the state of the crime, the method of the crime, and the state of the crime committed after the crime, are consistent with the defendant's statement at the police station, "if the victim has reached several knife at the back of the taxi, the same knife would take place." The defendant's statement that "the defendant takes the knife at the back of the knife, reached one knife, and reached several times more," and the state of knife kept under M's knife and M's knife, that is, the state of the knife being kept under the knife, such as the skin and the knife.

F. In full view of the records of taxi operation of the victim, the details of transfer given and received between the victim and the employees of the taxi company, and the statements made by employees of the taxi company to which the victim belongs, the victim analyzed the moving route around the time of the crime of this case. On August 10, 2000, the victim operated the 2.2 km section of the H bus stop, which is the place of the crime of this case, on August 10, 2000, under the direction of the victim, around 02:01, the victim laid down the apartment near the E apartment at around 02:01, after the passenger was killed. From then up to 02:08, the victim did not take the "line of the operation record meter (Tcometer) at the average speed of 40 km/h from the day of the crime of this case, i.e., the 2.2 km section of the H bus stop, which is the place of the crime of this case.

On the other hand, according to the on-site inspection result of this court, the records analysis and judgment statement at the time of the crime of this case, according to the road situation at the time of the crime of this case, in order to move into one's house at the place stated by the police that the defendant renounced the first crime of this case, the distance from the E apartment to the AL apartment, about 600 meters, from the AL apartment to the AL apartment, and about 2 km from the AL apartment to the scene of this case.

A taxi driver has started running a taxi when ordinary customers board the taxi. However, since the taxi company where the victim is working did not control the business behavior of the taxi driver, the basic fare distance has not been applied to the passenger, such as getting off or getting off the taxi, and even when the passenger gets on the taxi, it is often being operated without getting off the "cab" thrower. And when the victim gets off the taxi near the above apartment at around 02:01 on the day of the instant case, it is reasonable to move the passenger to the AL apartment with a large dynamic population, and it is expected that the new passenger's destination to find the passenger in the state of public car instead of H in order to find the passenger in the direction of the new wall-hour population.

In full view of these circumstances, at around 02:01 on August 10, 201, the victim: (a) was making a guest in the E Apartment at around 02:01; and (b) was moving to the AL apartment to board customers again; (c) it was difficult for the Defendant who was involved in the commission of the instant crime by going back to one location between EAmpt and AL apartment; (d) the Defendant was living in the H bus stop, which is the basic distance, and the location of the instant crime, where the Defendant did not take the passengers of the defective driving record book, and the Defendant was killed after turning on the direction of the Defendant’s demand. Accordingly, the entire process of the instant crime is naturally consistent with the movement route of the taxi operated by the victim, the movement route of the Defendant, and the Defendant’s statement by M, and the entire process of the instant crime is naturally visible.

Nevertheless, the Defendant and M argues that the circumstances leading up to these crimes were tending. However, it seems that there was no way for the Defendant and M to obtain specific information about the victim’s moving path that can only be discovered through the investigation and analysis of the records of call-free taxi, the operation record book, the statement by experts in the operation record book, and the statement by the taxi companies at the time of the occurrence of the instant case (the answer that had taken place between three cases is the offender) and that there was no way to obtain information about the victim’s moving path that could only be known ( even if the information about the instant case was distributed among the people, it is difficult to view that information about the instant specific case was distributed beyond the content related to the facts charged against AD, which was found guilty as being the murder of the victim of the instant case, as seen earlier). It is reasonable to view that it was impossible in light of the empirical rule to view that it was a typical crime that did not have any content related to the victim’s objective movement route and accurately consistent with the victim’s objective movement route without such information.

G. In light of the relationship between the Defendant and M, etc. as seen earlier, the place where the instant crime was committed does not fall short of the degree of 400 meters from the office of M, and in view of the following: (a) it is difficult to see that the Defendant was selected as the place where the Defendant was aware of geographically well-known and comfortable H bus stops after committing the crime; and (b) it is highly related between the Defendant’s personal characteristics and the place where the crime was committed.

H. The Defendant and M was released by the Prosecutor’s Office after dismissal of the police’s application for detention warrant, and was hospitalized in the same mental hospital. From that time, all statements on the instant crime took place at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, and the Defendant and M began to reverse the statement.

M makes a false statement to the branch in order to raise that the Defendant was a person who was unsatisfed at the time of the occurrence of the instant case. However, the people who say that M was "the Defendant committed the instant crime" from M are most closely related to or do not have any relation with the Defendant, and M is deemed as having a false relation with the Defendant, and there is no reasonable ground to actively see that M is the Defendant as a robbery, and it is difficult to believe that M is a person who committed robbery, and that there is no reasonable ground to actively raise the Defendant’s unsatisfy against the Defendant.

In addition, at the time of being investigated in 2003, the Defendant made a false confession to have a parent who does not look at himself and herself and herself, and to induce her to agree with the judgment of her parents. After the Defendant was arrested, the Defendant appears to have interest in the Defendant, such as finding the Defendant, and the her parent did not need to make a false statement any longer.

However, from around 1996, the parents of the defendant was living in middle school, and the defendant was living in middle school away from his parents. Since 2003 when the investigation began, it is difficult to say that the defendant, who already became an adult, committed a serious crime such as robbery to inflict pain on his parents and to have an interest. Moreover, it is very natural to recognize the crime by causing false motive as alleged by the defendant. In addition, it is very natural that the defendant, who was suffering from the police officer who found himself in 2003 at the time of 2003, was immediately recognized and arrested as committing the crime immediately after hearing his statement by M. from the police officer who tried to find himself at the time of 203.

Even if the Defendant was led to a confession with the intent to inflict pain on his parents, M was investigated earlier than the Defendant at the time when the Defendant made a detailed statement about the Defendant’s crime, and thus, it was difficult to know whether the Defendant made a confession as well as the aforementioned motive of confession and whether the Defendant made a confession. Furthermore, even though M was aware of the motive of the Defendant’s confession, there is no reason to cooperate with the Defendant’s false confession until the Defendant was committed, and there is no motive to make a false statement that M had committed robbery by the Defendant.

Rather, even though the Defendant and M have led to a serious crime of robbery that the Defendant and M have committed robbery and led to the escape of the Defendant, upon dismissal of the application for detention warrant on his own other person, they would be able to deny the crime, and at that time, they would have reversed the above justification and the statement. As seen earlier, it is difficult to recognize consistency and rationality in the contents of the statement after the Defendant and M have reversed the statement.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than seven years but not more than 15 years;

2. Determination of sentence: 15 years of imprisonment;

The defendant prepared a knife in advance to prepare money, and kills the victim knife at 12 times or knife by coloring the object of the crime, and then knife the victim knife at knife. The defendant's crime is interviewed to the extent that it is difficult to believe that the juvenile under 19 years of age has committed the crime.

The murder is a serious crime in which the life of a human being, which is a valuable value that cannot be altered, is that it is impossible to recover from damage in any way. Furthermore, the robbery is an anti-human crime in which the life of a person is deducted for economic interest, and for any reason, cannot be rational or used, and the responsibility of the defendant is very heavy.

It is difficult to measure mental and physical pain of the victim who satisfed by being satisfed with the new wall that she had been engaged in the satching of the satisfy with the satching of the satisfy, without any mistake, and the satching of the satisfy. Furthermore, it is clear that the husband and the bereaved family members who have lost her father who have satisfy love with the satisfy will also live with the satfy situation where it is difficult for the bereaved family to recover the damage.

In the course of committing the instant crime, a third party, who was unsatisfy due to the Defendant’s criminal act, suffered from a long-term pain of living in prison. Of course, the result of such an unsatisfying is attributable to the wrong judgment of a court and an investigative agency, and it may be a human nature that attempts to conceal one’s own crime. Therefore, it is difficult to criticize the Defendant merely by itself that a person who did not avoid committing the instant crime committed a long-standing life in prison. However, even at the time when the judgment of innocence became final and conclusive, and the trial against the Defendant was in progress, it is consistent with the attitude without awareness of the crime by denying his criminal act by a vindication that it is difficult for the Defendant to understand even at the time when the trial against the Defendant was in progress. Such attitude of the Defendant should be criticized, and there

In light of the fact that there is a high social defense need to be ensured in order to prevent the occurrence of scarcitys like the instant case, the Defendant is subject to strict punishment corresponding thereto.

However, at the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was a juvenile of 19 years old at the time of committing the instant crime and was living difficult without the appropriate protection of his parents in an unsound environment, and the Defendant was living without committing any other crime before and after the instant crime, and there are favorable circumstances for the Defendant.

In full view of all the above circumstances, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, background of the instant crime, motive, means, result, etc. of the instant crime, and all of the sentencing conditions shown in the pleadings in the instant case, the punishment as ordered shall be determined within the scope of the applicable sentencing by law.

Judges Oil-ran,

Judges Gangwon-do;

2) The term “H bus stops” means the bus stops installed at the place where the instant crime was committed. At the present time, the bus stops was removed at the place where the instant crime was committed; hereinafter referred to as “H bus stops”).

3) This cannot be used as evidence, since the Defendant, as a re-specialized statement, did not consent to use it as evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do171, Mar. 11, 2004). The same applies to the same.

4) At the time of the occurrence of the instant case, a juvenile of 15 years of age, who had worked as a delivery source, was indicted with the facts charged that “At the time, time, and place indicated on the market, the victim was killed in a knife.” (Seoul High Court 2001No76) and was convicted of the said victim. However, a new trial on the said judgment (Seoul High Court 2013No3) was commenced, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 17, 2016, on which the said facts charged was pronounced not guilty, and on which the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 17, 2016, the said judgment became final and conclusive on the following matters: “Dao Man”, “Dao”, and “Dada”, etc. emitted from the statements of M, etc. below, are expressions referring to the said Ad.

5) The specific contents of the Defendant and M are as stated in Article 2-A and 2-B of the judgment as to the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion.

6) The date of withdrawal from the Housing Bank in which P actually worked is August 31, 200, and P appears to have stated as above the above time of visit to the House of M, but in fact it appears to have existed September.