A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, etc.

In light of the records, it can be acknowledged that each suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant in the preparation of judicial police assistant or prosecutor against the defendant 2, 3, 4, etc. has been filed voluntarily, and there is no evidence to deem that there was violence, cruel act, leading question, etc. as alleged in the grounds of appeal during the preparation process. Thus, the adoption of each suspect interrogation protocol as evidence of guilt cannot be deemed as a violation of Articles 11(1) and 12(7) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, Article 309 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or infringement of the right to a trial under the Criminal Procedure Act.

In addition, in light of the records, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of each crime in the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing or by misapprehending the legal principles on murder and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

The assertion is justified as to the preparation, judgment, and fact of evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or is without merit since the judgment of the court below is a tree in different opinion from the court below.

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder

(1) The lower court rejected Defendant’s mental and physical disability assertion on the following grounds.

In other words, even though the defendant had a significant drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case, in light of the circumstances leading up to the crime, the means and method of the crime, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is recognized that the defendant's drinking does not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, and even if it is recognized as such, it can not be reduced due to mental or physical disorder pursuant to Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act, since it constitutes a case where he had a significant drinking at the time of drinking, in collusion with the defendant to commit the crime such as murder in conspiracy with the defendant, and caused the above mental or physical disorder in order to predict the above crime at the time of drinking, even if it is possible to reduce it due to mental or physical disorder pursuant to Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.

(2) In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in finding facts due to violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, or in misapprehending the legal principles as to mental and physical disorder and Article 10 (3) of the Criminal Act.

C. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

In light of the records, even if the defendant had been sentenced several times to commit the crime of this case, he collected violence including high school students without good cause even before committing the crime of this case, and committed a crime only because other violence groups do not recognize their existence, and there is no way to completely consider the motive for committing the crime. From the day on which the crime was committed, the court below ordered the above defendants to purchase lethal weapons, such as knife and camping-out nets, etc., and ordered the defendant to purchase the deadly weapons, such as knife and camping-out nets from the day on which the crime was committed. The defendant's preparation process is very secret and organized, and the defendant's first crime committed by the defendant et al., which led the victim Eul et al. to murder with their knife, and the victim et al. failed to reach an agreement on the punishment of the crime of this case, and the court below cannot accept the judgment of the court below that the victim et al., including the defendant's first-time police officer's remaining grounds of appeal, and it did not contain the defendant's physical harm.

2. Each ground of appeal by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 and their state appointed defense counsel are also examined.

A. As to the assertion of mistake of fact, etc.

Examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, it is just that the court below found the above defendants guilty of the facts constituting the crime, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or the legal principles of the crime of murder and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act due to the incomplete deliberation, such as the adoption of false confessions by the defendant, etc., as evidence of guilt, such as violence, cruel acts, or leading newspapers, or the incomplete deliberation, or there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of murder and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, as alleged in the grounds of appeal. The assertion is justified by the court below for the cooking

B. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles as to mental disorder

The court below held that the above defendants 3 and 4 were not able to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, in light of the circumstance of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the behavior of the above defendants before and after the crime, and the circumstances after the crime. In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mental and physical disorder or incomplete deliberation, as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

C. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

Even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal against Defendants 2, 3, and 4, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, comprehensively considering the motive of the instant crime, the severity of the method of the crime, the consequences of the crime, and the circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the sentencing for each of the above Defendants is extremely heavy.

3. Defendant 5’s defense counsel’s grounds of appeal (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed by the counsel after the deadline for submission) are examined as follows.

In light of the records, the court below's dismissal of the defendant's appeal on the ground that the defendant did not have been forced to commit the above crime by force which could not resist the defendant, or by force which could not protect the defendant's own life or body, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the intent of the crime and coercion of the crime, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, in light of the relation between the defendant and the above defendant 1, including a high school student, and the relationship with the above defendant 1, including a high school student, and the situation at the time of the crime of this case.

The assertion is justified as to the preparation, judgment, and fact of evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, or is without merit since the judgment of the court below is a tree in different opinion from the court below.

4. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal is to be included in each original sentence against Defendants 2, 3, 4, and 5. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)