Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of special larceny is acquitted.

On October 17, 2008, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 10 months in the Seoul Western District Court for night-time intrusion larceny and the judgment became final and conclusive on December 27, 2008.

On June 11, 2008: 04:25, the Defendant: (a) intruded into the house outside the wall of the victim A (n, 65 years old) in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City****** the victim A (n, 65 years old); (b) opened an inner window and attempted to steal money and goods; (c) but, (d) was discovered by the victim from smoking tobacco, cut down the victim so as to avoid arrest, the Defendant committed violence against the victim, or committed violence against the victim, by cutting off his half-pat and her fat, after cutting off the victim over several times for the purpose of evading arrest.

Summary of Evidence

1. Witness Kim * Legal statement

1. Each statement made by the police officer A and Kim 00;

1. Investigation report (to listen to and report on the statement by telephone of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office DNA analysis team, and to investigate into the height of thunders at a victim's house A);

1. Written request for appraisal and written appraisal of genes (National Institute of Scientific Investigation);

1. Notification of appraisal results (the Supreme Prosecutors' Office)

1. Request for cooperation in investigation (Delivery of family relation certificate);

1. Requests for cooperation with investigation (one copy of the details of health insurance benefits);

1. Each fact-finding reply (00 university hospital and 000 won);

1. Previous convictions in judgment: Investigation report (current status of personal identification and report attached to the judgment) and criminal records;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 342, 335, and 333 of the Criminal Act; main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010)

2. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

3. Concurrent punishment and legal mitigation;

Determination as to the assertion by the defendant or his/her defense counsel under the latter part of Article 37, Articles 39(1) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the court shall be mitigated in consideration of equity in cases where a judgment on a crime in the judgment becomes final and conclusive at night, and at the same time

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the defendant committed larceny several times in the past, he was already subject to reasonable punishment, and did not participate in all the crimes as stated in the facts charged. However, even though the same gene type as the defendant was detected in the oil products at the scene of the crime in this case, the results of the gene test alone cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is neither the two parts of the defendant nor the defendant is the criminal.

2. Determination

A. The results of genetic testing through DNA analysis, which is a method of scientific evidence, have high reliability insofar as an appraiser with sufficient professional knowledge and experience conducts an appraisal by utilizing generally established standard testing techniques and the analysis of the results is recognized to have been conducted through appropriate procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do588, Sept. 20, 2007, etc.).

2) According to the evidence examined above, the victim found the offender who had been trying to smoke out of the time of the crime of this case and found the offender, and found out that the offender exceeded half-in and back-in in the process of punishing the offender, and escaped, and in the course of the investigation into the crime of this case, the criminal was found to have discovered the same male gene type as the result of the examination by the National Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research on the genes extracted from the contact part of the above oil, and thereafter, the above gene type was found to have been found. The above gene type was found to have been found in accordance with the STR gene type analysis Act, and the above gene type was found to have been found to have been found to have been consistent with all of the gene types (the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, Kim* with respect to the defendant, and the National Institute of Scientific and Investigative Research conducted each genetic test).

3) The results of such genetic testing conducted by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of Korea and the Supreme Prosecutors' Office on the oil at the scene of the instant crime are deemed to have considerable binding force in finding facts insofar as the method of testing is so far as it is so far as the method of testing is not so unreasonable or unreasonable that it could not be disregarded. Thus, the instant crime can be reasonably predicted that at least one of the Defendant or Kim* is removed by one of the two. (In this court, the Defendant's defense counsel raised questions about the possibility of the existence of a third party's genes in each of the above oil products, but it seems that the results of the above testing conducted by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of Korea to the effect that "the same male's genes was detected in half-sti and subsequentdti," and that the above test conducted by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of Korea on the purport that "the same kind of genes has not been discovered separately from each of the above oil products."

B. Ultimately, the issues of this case are the probability that the crime of this case was committed by the defendant and Kim * among whomever among the defendant and Kim * is likely to be committed by the defendant (not just a possibility, but a conviction should be supported by the principle of evidence trial). Taking into account all the following circumstances known by the evidence mentioned above, it is determined that the possibility that the defendant committed the crime of this case around June 11, 2008 * * Kim * was very low. (2) * The above hospital was discharged from the above 6th day of May 2008, 200 * the above 0th day of May 2008, 200 * Kim 6th day of May 20, 2006 * Kim Jong-ok was discharged from the above 2nd day of the second floor before the occurrence of this case * Kim Jong-ok's disease at the above 0th day of May 20, 2005 * this case's hospital was hospitalized from the above 0th day of May 10.

B) Kim* * He/she took a part in the surgery at the time of discharge. He/she stated that he/she did not touch the ground of his/her father by using his/her own necks according to the doctor's instructions. Meanwhile, for the period during which he/she took part in the surgery, Kim * used both necks until he/she takes part in the surgery, and did not unfold his/her half of the bar exam. At the time of running the surgery, he/she visited the hospital with 4 to 5 months after the surgery, and that he/she did not have any inconvenience that he/she was given to him/her in the course of the surgery, such as "the day he/she took part in the surgery," and "the day he/she took part in the surgery," and that he/she did not have any way to confirm that he/she was given any inconvenience that he/she was given to him/her in the course of the surgery * 60 percent of the bar exam in the first half of the bar exam."

C) With respect to the circumstances at the time of the instant crime, the victim discovered a criminal who was in the window, and found sound from the window, and explained that the criminal who tried to knife the knife runs above the wall and escaped beyond the wall." However, considering that the height of the victim's wall was about 135cm ( Kim** * cm) and about 170cm, the above wall's height at least was similar to the height of the wall at least Kim* *) and the window height of the room that was listed at the time of the crime was similar to the height of the above wall.

D) If so, after undergoing an operation by going through the framework of the left blusium at the time of the instant case, Kim * who was walking with him on the blusium under the anti-sulllism at the time of the instant case, it is expected that considerable restrictions are imposed on the act of the victim, who was going through the above act explained by the victim, going to the same height beyond the victim's house fence leading up to the shoulder height, i.e., the victim's house fence leading up to the above window up to the shoulder height, and who tried to arrest him, going to go beyond the wall above the above blusium. In addition, Kim ** A* A, while predicting the risk of escape and arresting him who was going to follow the process of larceny, it is not found that there was a situation where economic difficulties or psychological difficulties, or was imminent, as much as he was able to lead to the instant crime, and committed the instant crime.

2) Meanwhile, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that “If the Defendant actually committed the instant crime, there is no special reason to deny only the said crime that occurred in the same year,” in the course of the investigation into night-time larceny, which was committed at around 2008, as the Defendant was voluntarily expressed in the judgment that the Defendant committed the instant crime.

However, according to the Defendant’s legal statement and investigation report (the personal identification status and the report of attachment of judgment), etc., the case was subject to the first investigation on September 16, 2008, where around 25, 2008 for the house price located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 00, and the other larceny case was subject to the same house price located in the same location as the immediately preceding 02:50 on the same day. At around 02:50 on the same day, the Defendant was arrested by the police officer after receiving the report immediately after each of the above offenses, and at the time of arrest by the police officer, the Defendant possessed cash, etc., which is the stolen object of the above crimes.

In light of the above facts, it seems that the defendant committed at around 02:50 on the same day and committed another thief, which was committed by the defendant, is due to the inevitable reasons such as: (a) the time and place of the crime subject to investigation was close to the time and place of the crime; and (b) the possession of the relevant stolen at the time of arrest. Therefore, there is a lack of reasonable grounds to determine whether the defendant actually committed the crime of this case, and whether the night residence intrusion larceny and the time and place of the occurrence thereof, and applicable provisions of this case are different from those of the crime of this case.

C. Conclusion

As above, it is reasonable to judge the subject of the crime of this case as the defendant, in full view of the results of the genetic test as seen earlier, since the two balls of the defendant involved in the crime of this case ** The possibility that the defendant involved in the crime of this case is very low, it is reasonable to judge the subject of the crime of this case as the defendant (the defendant committed night intrusion larceny around September 2008, which is close to the time when the crime of this case occurred, around September 2008. Accordingly, the defendant seems to have continuously committed the same type of larceny for about three months around 208). Accordingly, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not acceptable.

In addition to the instant crime, the Defendant had the history of having been sentenced to imprisonment, etc. with prison labor, etc. for several larceny offenses, as well as the form of denying and opposing the existence of a pair of balls by doping up to this court. As such, the Defendant’s responsibility for the instant crime should not be assessed against impreciating.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the Defendant was already sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the larceny crime committed in the same year as the instant crime, not only the Defendant committed the instant crime but also the degree of tangible force exercised in the process is minor, and the victim also does not want the punishment of the Defendant, the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the background and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the sentencing conditions of the instant case, including the following factors.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 24, 2010: 00:0 to 07:00, the Defendant got in front of the house of the victim B located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si******** the victim et al., she set off a small window screen by putting a deadly weapon between the potential weapons and enter the room, and cut off 40,000 won in cash from the handbag in that area.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to have a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006, etc.).

B. Based on the above legal principles, among the evidence submitted to this court, the probative value of the evidence of this case is examined as to the probative value of the evidence of this case. First of all, the results of the genetic test of the knife, which is an oil product at the present site, as evidence directly supporting this part of the facts charged, [only the results of the knife test (the National Institute of Research on Science and Technology), the notification of the results of the appraisal (the Supreme Prosecutors' Office; hereinafter the same shall apply]. However, according to the above results of the genetic test, only the defendant and Kim *** only can be recognized that one of the parties committed a crime as stated in the facts charged (the knife at the present scene of the crime was not used at the victim's house). Furthermore, according to the above genetic test results alone, it is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant, other than the defendant, was the subject of the crime described in the facts charged.

C. Meanwhile, according to the investigation report (personal identification and report on attachment of judgment, each attachment of a copy of judgment), criminal records, etc., Kim** in the case of Kim*, while each night-time larceny crime committed around 1997 and around 2001 has a form of intrusion upon residence by either passing through a string gate, etc. or simply passing a window, etc., in the case of the defendant, it can be acknowledged that the defendant committed the larceny of a method similar to the crime as stated in this part of the facts charged, such as tamping of the toilet's security window or impairing a residence by cutting the pipe of the crime prevention window installed on the main window, etc.

① However, the legal difference between the Defendant and Kim**’s above-mentioned nighttime larceny is merely a detailed difference that may vary depending on the specific circumstances at the time of the crime, including the structure, etc. of the house colored as the object of the crime. ② The Defendant also committed the larceny by intrusion upon the residence through the heatd window or berara, around 2008. Considering these circumstances, it is difficult to view that only the number of larceny crimes on around 197 and around 201, which had a ten-year interval from the date and time of the crime indicated in the above facts charged, can not be viewed as having determined the number of the crimes of the Defendant or having an influence on it, and that it is difficult to view that there was no possibility that the Defendant had committed the crime of larceny as stated in the above facts charged by the Defendant to the extent that it had been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for up to 2010, as well as at the time of the crime of larceny at least 4 years ago.

C. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Opinions of Jurors

○ Opinions on the charge and innocence

1. Criminal facts as indicated in the judgment: "guilty (four persons)" and "not guilty (three persons);

2. Part of the facts charged not guilty: "guilty (0 persons)" and "not guilty (7 persons);

○ Opinions on sentencing

Imprisonment with prison labor and six months (four persons), one year (two persons), nine months (one person).

For the above reasons, this case is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

Judges Kim Yong-han

Judicial Rule