(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

(c) Special larceny;

(d) Murder;

2. A. (b) B

3. (a) b. C.

4. D. D.

Attorney AO (National Ship for Defendant B)

Law Firm H (Attorney AP, Q, AR, I, AS;

AT (for Defendant C)

Law Firm (LLC) K (Attorneys L, AU)

(Defendant D)

1. As to the Defendants’ ground of appeal

A. Murder, abandonment of a corpse, and special larceny

The court below determined that Defendant A, B, and C conspired with each other to kill the victim and commit a theft by combining the victim's goods, Defendant A, and B conspired to abandon the victim's body, and Defendant D assisted and abetted the victim's body by strengthening the resolution in killing the victim, on the grounds of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence.

was made.

In light of the records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable, and there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by misapprehending the legal principles on the establishment of joint principal offenders or by omitting judgment.

B. Examining the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, details and contents of the instant crime, circumstances after the crime, appraisal of damage, etc. as indicated in the records of the instant case, the sentence of the first instance court maintained by the lower court cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair. Moreover, there is no error of misapprehending the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration in determining Defendant D’s punishment.

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is permitted. Thus, Defendant D’s assertion that the sentencing of a sentence is unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

2. As to the prosecutor's ground of appeal

The court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the defendant C of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant C conspired with the defendant A and B about the dead victim's body in collusion with the defendant A and the deceased victim's body and abandoned the body under the unsloping paths, or that the defendant C conspiredd to abandon the body of the above defendant A, B and the victim's body or participated in the crime of abandonment of the body of the above defendant. The court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

Furthermore, the lower judgment’s assertion of unreasonable sentencing premised on the above error cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Shin-chul