Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment of 35 years, by imprisonment of 12 years, by imprisonment of 5 years, by imprisonment of 10 years, and by fine of 3,00,00 won, by co-defendant 6.

When Defendant 6 fails to pay the above fine, Defendant 6 shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 50,000 into one day.

The charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against Defendant 1 is not guilty.

A. Summary of the defendants' grounds for appeal

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

a)Defendant 1

(1) Although there was a fact that the victim made the victim’s sexual intercourse during the victim’s sexual organ, the victim was unaware of the victim’s sexual organ and had no intention to commit an indecent act at the time, and thus, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of indecent act by compulsion by military personnel, etc. erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of indecent act by military personnel, etc.

(2) The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of intimidation or by misapprehending the fact that there was no threat of harm against the victim Nonindicted 1, and there was no intention to make intimidation, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the crime of intimidation.

B) Defendant 5

(1) The crime of neglecting duty is established when the act of neglecting duty is a crime of neglecting duty’s awareness and is not included in the act of neglecting duty. Thus, Defendant 5’s failure to take appropriate measures with the knowledge that the victim was on a bridge or abused and reported the victim’s personal information, and the fact that the victim did not report it to the commander cannot be recognized as a crime of neglecting duty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of neglecting duty or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) Although the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc., although the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.), since the lower court committed an act of violence with electric stand in a cover of a brush.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below is too unreasonable in light of the circumstances of the defendants.

B. Summary of the grounds for appeal by the military prosecutor

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 (hereinafter “defendants”) on the ground that the Defendants could not be deemed to have committed the murder on the ground that the Defendants did not have any negligence with respect to murder even if they were sufficiently recognized at the time of committing the instant crime, and that there was no negligence with respect to murder. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to willful negligence or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B) The meaning of "joint" is not limited to the case where multiple people's joint processing is required, and the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the crime even though the crime subject to petition is not limited to continuous crime, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Ex officio determination of changes in indictment against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

Before determining the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and the military prosecutor, this paper examined ex officio.

검찰관은 당심에 이르러, 피고인 1에 대하여는 죄명에 ‘특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복범죄등)’을 추가하고, 적용법조에 ‘ 특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의9 제2항 , 제1항 제2문, 형법 제283조 제1항 ’을 추가하고, 공소사실 중 2. 다. 2)항의 “피해자가 이 사실을 알리면 자신의 범죄사실이 드러날 것을 우려하여 2014. 4. 6. 20:30경 위 소속대 의무반 생활관에서 피해자에게 “공소외 1은 자고 있었던 거에요.”라고 하여 피고인의 범행사실을 목격한 바 없다는 취지로 말하도록 협박하였다.”를 “피해자가 이 사실을 알리면 자신 또는 공범들의 범죄사실이 드러날 것을 우려하여 피해자가 수사기관 등에서 진술하지 못하게 할 목적으로 2014. 4. 6. 20:30경 위 소속대 의무반 생활관에서 피해자에게 “공소외 1은 자고 있었던 거에요.”라고 하여 피고인의 범행사실을 목격한 바 없다는 취지로 말하도록 협박하였다.”로, 피고인 2에 대하여 죄명을 ‘폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등폭행)’을 ‘폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단·흉기등 협박)’으로, 적용법조를 ‘ 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제6조 , 제3조 제1항 , 제2조 제1항 제1호 , 제2조 제2항 ’을 ‘ 폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률 제3조 제1항 , 제2조 제1항 제1호 , 제2조 제2항 , 형법 제283조 제1항 , 제260조 제1항 ’으로 변경하고, 공소사실 중 8. 다.항의 “피해자의 복부를 4회 걷어 찬 후, 위험한 물건인 역기(5kg)를 들어 피해자를 내리치려고 하였으나 옆에 있던 피고인 6이 말려 미수에 그쳤다”를 “피해자의 복부를 4회 걷어 찬 후, 오른손으로 위험한 물건인 역기(5kg)를 잡아 머리 높이로 들어 올린 후 피해자를 내리치려는 시늉을 하여 피해자에게 겁을 주었다. 이로써 피고인은 피해자를 폭행하고, 위험한 물건을 사용하여 피해자를 협박하였다”로 각 변경하는 공소장변경허가신청을 하였고, 당심이 이를 허가 하였다.

As above, the judgment of the court below against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 was modified due to the permission of changes in the indictment. Since each of the crimes of this case against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below was sentenced to a single sentence. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more.

B. Ex officio determination on Defendant 1’s registration of personal information and orders to disclose or notify personal information

Before determining the grounds for appeal by the military prosecutor against Defendant 1 and Defendant 1, the crime of indecent act by compulsion under the Military Criminal Act constitutes “sexual assault crime” under Article 2(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Violence (hereinafter “Sexual Violence Act”) (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do2585, Dec. 24, 2014). Meanwhile, a person who commits a “sexual assault crime subject to registration” under Article 42(1) of the Sexual Violence Act is subject to disclosure and notification order pursuant to Articles 47 and 49 of the same Act.

In light of the above legal principles, the crime of indecent act by compulsion by the military personnel, etc. of this case constitutes a "sexual crime subject to registration" under Article 42 (1) of the same Act, which is subject to an order to disclose or notify the personal information under Articles 47 and 49 of the same Act, and thus, constitutes a "sexual crime subject to registration" under Article 42 (1) of the same Act. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of indecent act by compulsion by the military personnel, etc. of this case, thereby omitting judgment on the disclosure or notification of personal information against the defendant.

In addition, an order to disclose or notify information under the Sexual Violence Act, etc. is an incidental disposition to be declared simultaneously with a judgment on the relevant sexual crime case, and where there is error in the judgment on the disclosure or notification order, the entire part of the order should be reversed even if there is no error in the remaining sexual crime case (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do13095, Mar. 27, 2014).

On the other hand, there are grounds for ex officio reversal, but the argument of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the military prosecutor on Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 and the argument of unreasonable sentencing are still subject to the judgment of the military court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the existence of intention to murder

A. The judgment of the court below

From the beginning of March 2014, the Defendants had consistently denied the Defendants’ intention to murder at the investigation stage. From the beginning of the instant crime, the Defendants assaulted the victims with minor reasons. There is no circumstance to deem that there was a sudden motive for murder, using lethal weapons or dangerous objects at the time of the crime. According to the appraisal report and written request for appraisal of the result of autopsy, the Defendants’ assault on the day of the crime did not cause death, but the direct damage to the material part of the body was found to have been discovered on the part of the victim, and it is difficult to view that there was no possibility of death from the point of view that there was no possibility of death from the point of view that there was an excessive shock of the victim from around 07, to the point of view that there was no possibility of death from the point of view that there was an excessive shock of the victim, and that there was no possibility of death from the point of view that there was an excessive shock of the victim, such as an act of violence and an act of violence on the part of the victim’s body, and that there was no possibility of death from the victim’s body.

B. Legal principles

1) The intent of murder in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or predictability is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, whether the defendant was a criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, existence and type of the crime, method of attack, the part and repetition of the prepared deadly weapons, and the degree of the possibility of causing the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 206).

2) The recognition of criminal facts in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads to the judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the proof by the military prosecutor does not sufficiently reach the extent that the aforementioned convictions is to be followed, even if the defendant's assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomfortable, the defendant's interest should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012). However, the term "reasonable doubt" refers not to all questions and unfortunates, but to the reasonable doubt about the probability of facts unfortunateed with logical and empirical rules, and thus, it should be based on this sexual prosecution that is grasped in relation to the fact finding that the circumstances favorable to the defendant have to be based on such factual doubt or abstract possibility cannot be said to be included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do364, Apr. 26, 2005).

C. Judgment of the court below

1) The reason for death

(a)a response to requests for appraisal made by the National Scientific Investigative Institute;

According to the response to the request for appraisal made by the National Science Investigation Agency, (1) the circular blood quantity can be sufficiently reduced to the extent of death if the difference occurs extensively even if the difference occurred in annual installments (1323 pages). (2) At the time of examining the data requested for appraisal, there is a wide range of scarbs that are likely to have been caused by a large number of external powers in human places, such as plebs, light, and large scarbs, etc., and there is no reason to view that these traumas were relatively strong, and (1324 pages), (3) the records of proceedings (13) the data submitted are hard to conclude that the private person has a shock, and (2) the scope and depth of each side of the victim, taking into account the data submitted, there is sufficient possibility that the scarbs or scarbs might have been caused by the scarbs and scarbs, and (5) the possibility of the scarbsing or scarbsic shocks can be considered.

B) Nonindicted 2’s statement by the legal officer

8 Even if Non-Indicted 2 appeared in the court below and the court below, Non-Indicted 2 stated that she would have been presumed to have been brupted by cardiopulmonary resuscitation at the time of the commencement of the appraisal document by means of a standardized form (231 pages), and that there was no possibility that she would have been brupted by cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and that she could not be found to have been able to have been brupted by cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and that she could not be found to have been able to have been brupted by 2 in the first instance court (232 pages), and that there was no possibility that she would have been brupted by 2 in the second instance court (200) and that there was no possibility that she would have been brupted by 3 in the first instance court, and that there was no possibility that she would have been brupted by 3 in the first instance court room (2000).

C) The causal relationship does not mean that the defendant's act does not cause or directly cause the result of the victim's death, and it can be recognized even if the victim's negligence, etc. concurrently causes the result, and the causal relationship as to the cause of death may also occur as an overlapping cause.

D) In full view of the following facts, considering the response to the request for appraisal made by the National Scientific Investigation Agency of Paragraph A and the non-indicted 2’s statement made by the legal officer of Paragraph (b) and the facts of each of the following paragraphs, the fact that the Defendant’s assault caused a wide range of climatic shocks to the victim, which directly caused the death or that the climatic shock was killed because of the direct cause of the death or the climatic shock caused by the climatic shock shall be sufficiently recognized.

① 2014. 3. 7. 어간 피해자의 허벅지에 멍이 들어 있었으며, ② 2014. 3. 30. 가슴부위의 거의 전체가 멍이 들었고 무릎은 완전히 구부리지 못하는 상태였던 점(소송기록 2711쪽), ③ 2014. 4. 4. 피고인 3이 휴가에서 복귀하여 피해자를 보았는데 눈이 퀭하고 얼굴 쪽에는 전부 멍이 들었었고 머리 뒤쪽과 목 쪽에 상처가 너무 많은 등 전신에는 상처투성이여서 누구라도 알 수 있는 상태였던 점(소송기록 1060쪽, 2325쪽), ④ 2014. 4. 4. 이후에는 항상 얼굴이 창백하고 입술이 말라있었던 점(증거기록 886쪽), ⑤ 피해자가 컥컥 거리거나 음식을 뱉으려는 모습은 없었던 점(소송기록 893쪽), ⑥ 피고인 3은 2014. 4. 6. 피해자의 목 밑부터 가슴 명치까지 멍이 시퍼렇게 들어 있어서 충격적이었다고 진술하고 있는 점(소송기록 2304쪽), ⑦ 피고인들 모두 멍든 것은 아예 신경 쓰지 않고 때렸던 점(증거기록 132쪽), ⑧ 공소외 1은 피해자가 가혹행위를 지속적으로 당해서 무릎, 허벅지, 팔 부분에 계속 멍이 들었다고 진술하고 있는 점(소송기록 892쪽), ⑨ 피해자의 옆구리가 부어올라 있었고 멍이 들어 있었던 점, ⑩ 부검의 역시 추락사 이외에는 피해자만큼 멍든 사람을 본 적이 없다고 진술하고 있는 점(소송 기록 414쪽), ⑪ 우측 흉강에 200ml 혈흉이 관찰되고, 좌측 흉강에 혈흉을 제거한 흔적과 비장 파열로 인한 복강혈이 관찰되는 점(소송기록 2247쪽), ⑫ 피고인 3은 2014. 4. 6. 16:30경 정신을 잃고 쓰러진 피해자에게 두 모금 정도의 물을 먹였으며 이 때 피해자의 목으로 물이 넘어가는 것을 보았고 음식물을 본 적이 없었다고 진술하였고, 피고인 2 역시 기도확보기를 피해자의 입안에 넣을 때 음식물을 본 적이 없다고 진술한 점 등을 종합하면 피해자는 2014. 3. 7. 이후 신체가 스스로 회복할 수 있는 시간을 가지지 못한 채 지속적으로 폭행 및 가혹행위를 당하여 피하출혈 등이 누적되었다고 판단되고 병원으로 후송된 2014. 4. 6. 당시에는 피하출혈 등이 극도로 누적되어 피해자는 속발성 쇼크의 상태에 이르렀다고 판단된다.

2) The meaning of murder

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, it is reasonable to view that the Defendants were aware or predicted of the possibility or risk of the death of the victim due to a discriminatory assault committed by their own continuous and non-discriminatory assault at the time of the crime, and as such, the Defendants ought to be deemed to have had dolusent intent even if the Defendants did not recognize the conclusive intention of murder because they did not intend or plan the death of the victim. Nevertheless, the court below held that it is difficult to recognize the Defendants that there was a conclusive or dolusent intention on the part of the Defendants on the grounds of the circumstances stated in its reasoning. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the intentional act in the crime of murder

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument pointing this out is with merit.

A) Cumulative accumulation of assault and bodily injury against the victim

① 피고인들은 3월 초순부터 피해자를 특별한 이유 없이 폭행하여 왔고, 피고인들의 폭행으로 인하여 3. 15.부터 4. 6.까지 약 20일간 피해자는 다리를 절룩거리고 다닌 점, ② 피고인 1은 4. 5. 저녁 점호 이후 피해자가 피고인 1이 말한 것 중에 ‘피고인 1의 아버지가 조폭이었다는 사실이 가장 감명 깊었다’는 말을 들은 후 폭행의 범위와 강도는 급격히 강해졌고 피고인 1 이외의 피고인들은 피해자의 피해상태를 인식하면서도 폭행에 지속적으로 가담하여 왔던 점, ③ 특히 피고인 1은 4. 6. 00:00경 피해자 런닝셔츠의 멱살부위를 잡고 흔들어 런닝셔츠를 찢고, 30분 후 피해자가 갈아입은 런닝셔츠를 다시 잡아 찢는 등에 비추어 보면 당시 피고인 1의 폭행의지와 강도를 미루어 짐작할 수 있는 점, ④ 피고인들은 피해자로 하여금 종교행사에 가지 못하게 하고, 면회를 하지 않도록 하였으며 심지어는 식사도 제대로 할 수 없도록 하여 피해자를 의무반 이외의 사람들과 접촉할 수 있는 기회를 박탈하였고, 선임병인 지위를 이용하여 피해자로 하여금 어떠한 반항도 하지 못하게 한 후 무방비 상태의 피해자를 지속적으로 강하게 폭행하였고, 폭행할 때에는 일부 피고인들이 망을 보거나 폭행을 하다가 힘이 들면 다른 피고인들이 돌아가며 폭행하는 등 상호 역할분담을 하면서 강하게 폭행하였던 점, ⑤ 의무반원인 피고인들은 직접 폭행에 가담하거나 다른 피고인들이 폭행하는 것을 보았거나 알고 있었고, 폭행 후 피해자를 직접 치료하기도 하는 등 피해자가 당한 누적된 폭행의 정도나 상해의 정도를 비교적 정확히 알고 있었던 점, ⑥ 4. 1.부터 4. 3.까지 22:00경부터 03:00경까지 기마자세와 앉았다 일어서기, 침상에 앉아 있게 하는 등의 가혹행위와 폭행을 하면서 피해자가 잠을 자지 못하게 하고, 4. 4.부터는 하루에 3시간 정도밖에 피해자에게 수면시간을 주지 않고 4. 5에는 잠을 거의 재우지 않았으며, 4. 5.부터 4. 6.사이에는 식당에 보내지 않아 피해자는 라면 한 끼의 식사밖에 하지 못한 점(소송기록 987-988쪽), ⑦ 피고인 6은 3.말경 ‘힘껏 퍽퍽 소리가 날 정도로 때렸고, 점점 기력이 나빠지는 모습을 보면서 저렇게 맞다가 실신하는 등으로 버티지 못하겠구나’라는 생각이 들었고, 피고인 2도 ‘저렇게 맞다가 실신하는 등으로 못버티겠구나’, ‘피해자가 오줌을 싸고 옹앙옹알 거릴 때 사태가 더 심각해졌다고 느꼈으며 더 폭행을 한다면 생명에 지장이 있을 수 있겠구나’라고 진술하였고, 공소외 1도 ‘머리, 복부, 가슴을 계속해서 맞아서 언제 쓰러져도 이상하지 않을 정도였다.’라고 진술하였고, 공소외 19도 ‘피해자가 숨도 올바르게 쉬지 못하여 매우 격앙되어 있고, 정신없어 보였다’고 진술하고 있는 점 등을 고려해보면, 당시 피해자의 건강상태는 제3자 보더라도 매우 심각하였음을 인정할 수 있는 점, ⑧ 피고인들은 4. 6. 오전 피해자의 온 몸에 멍이 들어 있음을 확인한 후 피해자의 상태가 의무반에서 치료할 수 있는 범위를 넘어설 정도로 피해자의 상태가 위중하다는 사실을 인식하고 있었고(증거기록 1489쪽), 피고인 3도 당시 피해자의 상태가 충격적이었다고 진술하고 있는 점(소송기록 2304쪽), ⑨ 그럼에도 불구하고 피고인들은 범행이 발각될 것을 염려하여 별도의 진료 없이 피해자에게 수액을 주고 안티프라민을 발라주는 것으로 조치하였고 이후 폭행의 과정을 보아도 피해자의 피해상태 등을 고려하지 않고 폭행한 것으로 보이는 점(증거기록 132쪽), ⑩ 4. 6. 아침 점호 직후 피해자가 밤에 잠을 잤다는 이유로 피고인 1이 25회 정도 폭행하다가 손과 무릎이 아프다며 피고인 4에게 폭행할 것을 지시하였고 피고인 4는 피해자를 엎드려뻗쳐 자세를 시켜 무방비 상태로 만든 다음 피해자의 옆구리 부위를 20-30회 강하게 폭행하였고, 폭행하던 피고인 4가 다리가 아프다고 하자 피고인 3이 이어서 엎드려뻗쳐 있는 피해자를 계속해서 폭행하였던 점에 비추어 보면 당시 피고인들은 누구보다도 피해자의 상태를 비교적 정확히 인식하였다고 판단되는 점(소송기록 983쪽, 1038쪽, 2343쪽, 2501쪽, 증거기록 1487쪽), ⑪ 피고인 2는 4. 6. 오전에 피해자 가슴 부분에 손을 대었고 숨을 내쉴 때 뭔가 딸깍 거리는 느낌 내지 뼈가 뚝뚝 거리는 느낌이 있었고 당시에도 이미 갈비뼈가 골절되었다는 느낌을 받았다고 진술하고 있고, 피고인 3은 4. 6. 오전에 피해자가 갈비뼈가 제일 아프다고 하였고, ‘하아’, ‘하아’라고 하면서 크게 숨을 내쉴 정도로 피해자의 숨소리가 거칠었고 당시 피해자의 상체를 살펴보았을 때 가슴부터 배꼽 위까지 모든 부위가 멍이 들어 있었고, 그렇게 멍이 든 사람은 태어나서 한 번도 본 적이 없었고, 폭행으로 인해 피해자의 급소가 맞았을 수도 있었을 것이라고 진술하고 있는 점 등을 종합적으로 고려하면 피해자는 4. 6. 오전까지의 폭행만으로도 피해의 상태가 상당히 위중하였다고 판단되고 피고인들은 폭행에 직접 가담하거나 폭행한 사실을 알고 있었고, 피해자의 알몸 등을 확인하고 치료까지 하여 왔으므로 피해자의 상태의 위중함을 인식하고 있었다는 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

B) The extent of violence and the perception of the Defendants

(11) The defendant 2 was unable to use the victim's face accurately after 5, and the victim was 147-138 of the victim's face so that they could not use the victim's 6th body or knee, and the victim could not use the victim's 8th body or knee, and the victim's 2th body might not use the victim's 9th body or knee, and the victim's 9th body might not use the victim's 9th body and 5th body so that they could not use the victim's kneeries because of their violence. However, it is difficult to predict that the victim's 9th body and 6th body of the victim's kneeries were destroyed by the victim's 8th body and the victim's 9th body might not use the victim's kneeries and 5th body.

In the course of the assault of this case, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants sufficiently recognized or predicted the occurrence of the victim's death, and that they allowed the occurrence of the victim's death.

3) Ex officio determination as to the assertion that only a partial co-principal is a co-principal

A) Defendant 2’s assertion

Defendant 2 stated to the effect that the lower court did not properly examine Defendant 1’s intention of murder, and that Defendant 2 could have predicted the victim’s death, and if possible, it was in violation of the law of incomplete hearing that did not examine what responsibility for the death of the victim. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 are the partial co-principal, and thus, Defendant 1 is only the intentional principal, and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 are merely the liability for the death resulting from bodily injury, which is the criminal negligence, ex officio. As such, Defendant 2 demanded ex officio determination.

B) Legal principles

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more co-principals jointly commit a crime. In order to establish a co-principal, a crime is required to be committed through functional control based on the co-principal’s intent of co-processing, which is a subjective requirement and objective requirement. The intent of co-processing is integrated to commit a specific criminal act with the intent of co-principal, and the intent of co-processing refers to the movement of one’s own intent by using other person’s act. Such intent of co-processing is not sufficient to recognize the other person’s criminal act but to accept it without restraint. However, it is sufficient that the conspiracy of the crime plan does not necessarily require prior conspiracy to commit the crime plan, and there is a mutual agreement between the accomplices that each of the accomplices constitutes the elements of a crime or shares the act in essence related to the elements of a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6706, Sept. 11, 2008, etc.).

In relation to co-principals of conspiracys, it is necessary to resolve functional control over a person in charge of conspiracys in order to leave the relationship of conspiracys. As such, when a person in charge of conspiracy participates in conspiracys and has an effect on the execution of another person, he/she shall not be deemed to have left the relationship of conspiracys unless he/she removes the influence on the execution, such as actively endeavoring to prevent the crime, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do1274, Apr. 10, 2008, etc.).

C) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the trial:

① Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 shared their roles at the time of the assault by Defendant 1, such as taking part in the assault or viewing the network thereof, ② Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 were relatively accurately aware of the situation of the victim, and were aware of the degree and quantity of the assault committed by Defendant 1, and that Defendant 1 was committed continuously after his heading on May 2, 200, ③ Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 made a statement to the effect that Defendant 1 led, but the statement alone does not interfere with the recognition of the co-principal. Comprehensively taking account of the above circumstances, it is mutually understood that the share of acts related to the essential elements of the crime of murder, such as taking part in the assault by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, and Defendant 4 did not appear to have been a joint principal offender, nor did Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 were a joint principal offender.

Therefore, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 are liable for the crime of murder, and Defendant 2’s assertion that only Defendant 1 bears the responsibility for the crime of murder.

4. Judgment on a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to indecent act by force of military personnel, etc.

A. Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1 denies the criminal intent of indecent act by asserting that he was only the victim's intention of suffering and did not have the purpose of indecent act.

B. Legal principles

“Indecent act” as referred to in the crime of indecent act by compulsion means an act that causes sexual humiliation or aversion to the general public and is contrary to good sexual morality, and thus infringing on the victim’s sexual freedom. Whether it constitutes such act ought to be determined carefully by comprehensively taking into account the victim’s intent, gender, age, and perpetrator’s relation before and after the act, circumstances leading to the act, specific form of act, objective situation surrounding the act, sexual morality, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do2417, Apr. 26, 2002). Moreover, it does not require any subjective motive or purpose to stimulate, arouse, and satisfy sexual desire as a subjective element necessary for the establishment of the crime of indecent act by compulsion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do5856, Sept. 26, 2013).

C. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the trial court, “Indecent act” as referred to in the crime of indecent act by compulsion does not necessarily require the purpose or subjective motive to satisfy the sexual desire, and even if it is acknowledged that the victim was merely intended to inflict pain on the victim as alleged by the defendant, it is judged that Defendant 1 was aware that the victim could have caused sexual humiliation due to the victim’s sexual suffering, and that this part of the facts charged is expressed by violent means, and it is sufficient to view that Defendant 1 had the criminal intent of indecent act at least at the time of the act as well as the victim’s sexual humiliation or aversion. Thus, this part of the allegation by Defendant 1 is without merit.

5. Judgment on the grounds of appeal for misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

A. Summary of the facts charged

The summary of this part of the facts charged was as follows: (a) from the beginning of March 2014 to Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 3 died on April 7, 2014; (b) the victim Nonindicted 1 (the victim Nonindicted 20 years of age) went into a medical team in a astronomical manner; (c) from March 8, 2014 to March 9, 2014; and (d) from March 29, 2014 to April 6, 2014, Nonindicted 3, who was the same rank, appeared to have been present during several times to be used as assault and cruel assault on April 6, 2014; and (d) the victim was able to appear to have been present during the witness in an investigative agency for the purpose of preventing the victim from falling under one’s own or his accomplice.”

B. Defendant 1’s assertion

Defendant 1 asserts that since there was no threat of harm and injury, this part of the facts charged does not constitute intimidation.

C. Legal principles

A crime of violation of Article 5-9 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a crime subject to aggravated punishment against a person who commits a crime of intimidation under Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act for the purpose of retaliation against the provision of a criminal complaint, accusation, such as complaint, statement, testimony or submission of materials in connection with the investigation or trial of his/her or another person's criminal case.

In order to establish a crime of intimidation, intimidation means notifying a person of harm that may cause fear, and a crime of intimidation requires a concrete threat of harm to the extent that it may be deemed at least possible. Even if a threat of harm was made, if such threat is to the extent acceptable under the generally accepted social norms in light of social customs and ethical sense, the crime of intimidation is not established. However, whether there was an intentional act of intimidation or intimidation should be determined by taking into account not only the external appearance of the act, but also the circumstances leading to such act, and the relationship with the victim, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2412, May 26, 201, etc.). Furthermore, whether there was an intent of retaliation as provided for in the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crime, etc.) shall be determined reasonably in light of social norms by taking into account the following factors: the offender’s age, occupation, etc., motive and process of the act, content and mode of the act, personal relationship with the victim, and other circumstances before and after the crime (see, etc.

D. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court and the statements of the Defendants in the trial, the following:

① Although Defendant 1’s rank was higher than Nonindicted 1, there was no relationship between the Defendant 1 and the Defendant 1’s rank, and the mutual respect name was written. ② Defendant 1 did not assault or threaten Nonindicted 1, in addition to this part of the facts charged; ③ Defendant 3 was the person who first asked Nonindicted 1 after the victim’s transfer; and at this time, Defendant 3 was Defendant 3 was the period of her son’s son and her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s Me.

Based on the above facts, it is difficult for Defendant 1 to exclude the suspicion that is not asked to Nonindicted 1 by using a strong atmosphere. However, the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is imposed on the military prosecutor, and the recognition of guilt must be based on evidence with probative value that leads to the conviction that leads to the truth of the facts charged to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by the judge. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, it is inevitable to determine it as the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do616, May 14, 2009; 2008Do467, Jul. 24, 2008). The above facts and circumstances alone are difficult to exclude the reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant notified harm or had the intention to commit such act.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion that this part of the facts charged did not constitute an element of a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, which is the aggravated element of a crime of intimidation, has merit.

6. Determination as to Defendant 5’s assertion by the Defendant and the military prosecutor

A. Judgment of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the subordinate crime petition

1) The judgment of the court below

Article 93 of the Military Criminal Act provides that “A person who, knowing that he/she commits a crime jointly with multiple persons, fails to perform the method necessary for filing a petition shall be punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than three years.” In interpreting “ multiple joints”, it shall be interpreted to conform to the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation derived from the principle of no punishment without the law or the principle of clarity. The meaning of “ multiple joints” cannot be expanded to the extent that a single criminal continuously incurs, and an offense that cannot be said to be the subject of this crime cannot be interpreted as a crime.

In full view of the record, Defendant 5 was aware of a part of the individual assault, and it is difficult to acknowledge that there was no other evidence to acknowledge that the two or more persons jointly committed a crime. The meaning of “for the purpose of petition” is either the preliminary or conspiracy stage of a crime or the commencement of a crime, and the crime should be the phase prior to the commencement or termination of the crime. As such, the record alone is difficult to acknowledge this part of the crime, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the charges, and there is no other evidence to support this part of the charges.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

The crime of quasi-competence is established in cases where a person who knowingly commits a crime jointly with multiple persons and fails to perform the method necessary for filing a petition is punished by imprisonment with or without prison labor for not more than three years. Thus, the crime of quasi-competence is established when he/she commits a crime and fails to perform the method necessary for “petition.” Therefore, considering the principle of no punishment without the law, which is the derived from the principle of no punishment without the law, comprehensively taking into account the prohibition of interpretation and the principle of clarity, which is the principle of no punishment without the law, it cannot be expanded to cases where multiple persons jointly commit a crime, and the time of “petition” shall not be limited to cases where multiple persons jointly commit a crime, and it cannot be interpreted that the duty to prevent re-offending is granted in cases where the crime is anticipated to be committed in the future or where the crime is completed. This part of the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justified, and it does not seem that there is an error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as claimed by the military prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's argument in this part is without merit.

B. Determination of misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the waiver of duty

1) Defendant’s assertion

The crime of abandonment of duties is established when the act of abandonment of duties is committed, such as neglecting the duties, and is not included in the act of abandonment of duties. Thus, Defendant 5 did not take appropriate measures with the knowledge that the injured party was on a bridge or abused, and reported the injured party’s personal information, and did not report to the commander, thereby making it impossible to recognize the crime of abandonment of duties, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of abandonment of duties, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2) Legal principles

Despite the specific duty to act, a crime of abandonment of duty is established when a public official neglects his/her duty to act under the awareness that he/she is not obligated to act, and is not established in all cases where he/she neglects his/her duty to act abstract loyalty by statutes, internal rules, etc. Therefore, the crime is established only in cases of infringement of legal interests, such as the deprivation of duty without permission by the workplace, the renunciation of duty, etc., where a public official abandons his/her duty, and there is a specific risk of undermining the function of the State and causing damage to the people, and the degree of illegal and liability is high (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do963, Jan. 14,

In addition, the duty referred to in the crime of abandonment of duty refers to the duty that a public official assumes according to his deletion, and the public official's duty does not include the duty of accusation incidental to or derivatively resulting from his personal relation (see, e.g., Seoul High Court Decision 62Do41, May 2, 1962). To constitute the crime of abandonment of duty, the duty should be established on the grounds of the law that states the nature of the duty, or at least on the basis of the instruction or order of a special group in the military (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 75Do1895, Oct. 12, 1976).

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court and the statements of the Defendants in the trial, the following:

① 병영생활규정(육군규정 120 주3) ) 에 의하면 상관은 병사들의 일상생활의 관찰과 개인면담을 통하여 부하의 신상을 철저히 파악하고 개인적인 애로사항을 조기에 해결하도록 노력하여야 하고, 결함사항을 발견할 경우 직접 시정하거나 지휘계통에 따라 보고할 의무가 있는 점(소송기록 2532쪽), ② 그럼에도 불구하고 오히려 폭행을 당하고 있는 피해자에게 ‘피해자를 때리고 싶은데 콩알만 해서 못 때리겠다. 때리는 것은 신경안 쓴다. 맞으면서 키워야 한다’(소송기록 362쪽), ‘1개월 후에도 안 되면 때려서라도 가르치고, 안 되면 다른 조치를 취하자’(증거기록 933쪽), ‘군대에서는 선후임간 구타는 있을 수 있다. 참견하지 않겠다. 안되면 때려서라도 고쳐라’(소송기록 1031쪽, 2675쪽, 2685쪽, 증거기록 922쪽)라고 말하고, 폭행을 당했던 피해자에게 ‘혼냈던 선임에게 가서 사과하면서 더 싹싹하게 굴어봐라’라고 말한 점(소송기록 2678쪽), ③ 3월 초순부터 피해자의 바지를 벗어보라고 한 후 부어 있는 피해자의 허벅지를 확인하였음에도(소송기록 2529쪽, 2679쪽) 3. 28. 면담기록 작성시 피해자에게 발생한 상해사실은 기재하지 아니하고 이전에 있었던 눈의 이상여부만을 기재한 점(소송기록 1353쪽, 2691쪽, 증거기록 923쪽), ④ 피고인 5 역시 피고인 1을 감싸준다기 보다는 이것이 터지면 큰일 난다는 생각으로 보고를 하지 않은 것이라고 스스로 인정하고 있고, 스스로 좋게 끝낼 수 있을 것이라고 안일하게 생각한 점(증거기록 817쪽), ⑤ 피고인 5는 피고인 6에게 ‘내가 직접 피고인 1을 시켜서 폭행을 하게끔 했다.’라고 말한 점(소송기록 2706쪽), ⑥ 피고인 5는 피고인 3이 피해자를 폭행하는 것을 옆에서 보면서도 제지하지 않은 점(소송기록 2530쪽), ⑦ 의무대 안에서 피해자를 혼내려는 분위기가 있으면 의무대의 수송병이나 입실환자들을 밖으로 데리고 나갔던 점(소송기록 362쪽, 931쪽), ⑧ 피고인 5 스스로도 피해자의 뺨을 때리는 등 폭행에 가담한 점(소송기록 931쪽), ⑨ 4. 4. 저녁점호와 4. 5. 아침점호를 할 때 피고인 5가 의무반 생활관에서 있다는 이유로 의무반 전원이 점호를 받지 않은 점(소송기록 2347쪽), ⑩ 3. 17.경 피고인 5는 피고인 1이 무릎으로 피해자를 다수 폭행하여 피해자가 다리를 절고 다리가 부어 있다는 사실을 보고 받았음에도 불구하고 단순히 피해자에게 파스를 발라주라고 지시한 것에 그친 점(소송기록 1408쪽, 1415쪽), ⑪ 3. 29. 부대개방행사와 관련하여 피고인 3과 피해자로부터 피해자가 면회를 하고 싶다는 말을 들었음에도 피해자가 폭행당한 사실이 발각될 것이 두려워 피해자에게 ‘다리가 나은 후에 면회를 하는 것이 어떠냐’고 권유하여 결국 피해자가 부모를 면회하지 못하도록 한 점, ⑫ 또한 피해자에 대한 폭행과 피해자를 재우지 않은 사실 등을 보고 받아 알고 있었으므로 피해자의 몸 상태를 주기적으로 확인하였다면 피해자의 사망을 막을 수 있는 지위에 있었음에도 이를 방관하고 묵인한 점, ⑬ 피고인 4는 피해자가 쓰러진 후 다른 사람들이 앰뷸런스 타고 나간 후에 의무대에 혼자 대기하고 있으면서 처음으로 피고인 5에게 전화해서 피해자가 맞아서 쓰러졌다고 보고하였다고 진술하고 있는 점(소송기록 1415쪽) 등을 인정할 수 있고 위 인정된 사정 등을 종합하면,

Defendant 5 was an officer responsible for the duty team as noncommissioned officer, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 5 was a noncommissioned officer responsible for the management of the duty team such as submitting interview records. Defendant 5 also stated that there were many assaults against the victim, and that the victim's bucks were unable to walk properly due to the damage, but the victim's bucks were bucks and did not walk properly, and it can be acknowledged that Defendant 5's bucks were encouraged to commit violence. Furthermore, in light of the fact that Defendant 5 did not directly assault the victim, it is determined that Defendant 5 explicitly waived his duty that is responsible for the duty beyond the mere neglect of duty. Defendant 4 did not report that the victim was used for the duty team. However, Defendant 4 explicitly stated the facts at the disadvantage of Defendant 4, and Defendant 4 made a statement in detail, and Defendant 4 did not expressly reverse this part of Defendant 5's statement that it is difficult to reverse this part of his duty's misunderstanding of the legal reasoning and its reasoning.

Therefore, the defendant 5's argument in this part is without merit.

C. Judgment of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the act of assaulting with deadly weapons

1) Defendant 5’s assertion

Although the lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) even though it did not constitute “hazardous objects” in light of social norms, since it assaulted with air conditionings into electric stand, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of assault, etc. (a group, deadly weapon, etc.) in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Whether a certain thing constitutes “hazardous thing” under Article 3(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act ought to be determined based on whether the other party or a third party could feel a risk to life or body when using the thing in light of social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010).

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, since the defendant 5 had the victim answer too, hear and resist the victim's words, he can be recognized that the victim 130 pages of the evidence (it refers to 130 pages of the evidence record) was broken so that the victim can do so, and even if the victim wears the protective gear such as using the protective gear, etc. using the protective gear on the upper part of the head, the protective gear was worn only on the upper part of the head, and the victim can move at the victim or its surrounding third party due to a glass wave or plastic wave, the physical danger still exists, so the electric stand used as the means of assault against the victim is considered to be dangerous things. This part of the court below's judgment is justified, and it does not err by misapprehending the legal principles as argued by the defendant 5.

Therefore, Defendant 5’s assertion in this part is without merit.

D. Determination of unreasonable sentencing

A soldier beliefed the command system and served in the military. Even in the case of a soldier’s happiness, the command system is believed to protect himself/herself even when he/she takes the command, and even in the case of an order that has no choice but to lose his/her own life, he/she goes against his/her superior’s order to believe that he/she is an order for greater national interests and to obey and inflict pain on his/her superior’s order. However, Defendant 5 not only has the responsibility to interview the victim but also has the responsibility to prevent assault and cruel acts as an executive officer responsible for the whole of the medical group, but rather, provided the victim with an environment where the assault and brut act were more brutly reached in the medical group by allowing assault or assault. Considering this point, Defendant 5 ought to be punished strictly.

However, it is difficult to view that Defendant 5’s assault results in injury; the statutory penalty for the crime of abandoning duties is imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year; the victim’s bereaved family deposit a certain amount (two million won) for the victim’s bereaved family; the victim’s bereaved family has no criminal record; the victim’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; the means and consequence of the crime; and all of the sentencing conditions recorded in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, are considered, this part of this part of the main text of Defendant 5 is reasonable.

7. Determination of unfair sentencing on Defendant 6

Defendant 6 was aware of the fact that Defendant 6 assaulted the victim, but there is some points to consider the circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant 1 instructed Defendant 6 to observe the victim while assaulting Defendant 6; Defendant 6 also was the victim of assault and face before the victim transferred to the victim; Defendant 1 was the victim of the assault and face; Defendant 1 was the victim, such as drinking a fright, drinking away a fright, and resisting the victim’s passive or negative behavior; Defendant 6’s bereaved family member resisted Defendant 6 against Defendant 6; and taking into account all the sentencing conditions indicated in the record, such as Defendant 6’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime; the means and consequence of the crime; and circumstances after the crime, etc., Defendant 6’s allegation in this part is with merit.

8. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Articles 428 and 431 of the Military Court Act, and since it is deemed sufficient for the military court to render self-markets based on the records of this case, the court below's judgment is directly decided by the court after pleading pursuant to Article 435 of the same Act.

A. Defendant 1

Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) (including habitual assault and comprehensive violence), Articles 3(1), 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Articles 260(1) and 30(1) and 30(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 62(2) of the Military Criminal Act, Articles 87(1)2 and 27(1) of the Medical Service Act, Article 324 of the Criminal Act, Articles 92-3, Article 260(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 366-3 and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 13(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 5(2)1) of the Criminal Act, etc.

B. Defendant 2

Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 62(1) of the Military Criminal Act, Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of abuse of authority is a cruel act), Article 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence, the choice of imprisonment), Article 283(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 324 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 21(1) of the Punishment of Acts of Arranging, etc. Act, Article 21(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Arrangement of Commercial Sex Acts, Etc.

C. Defendant 3

Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Joint Violence and Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 260(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 366 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 366 and 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (Joint Violence and Selection of Imprisonment) of the Criminal Act (Joint Violence and Selection of Imprisonment)

D. Defendant 4

Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 62(2) of the Military Criminal Act, Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Articles 366 and 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint assault, the choice of imprisonment), Article 366 and 30(the point of causing damage to property, the choice of imprisonment), Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault and the choice of imprisonment)

E. Defendant 5

Article 122 of the Criminal Act (Abandoning of Duties, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (Abandoning of Violence, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 260 (1) and 32 (1) of the Criminal Act (Abandoning of Violence, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 3 (1) and 2 (1) 1 of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act, Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (abandoning of a deadly weapon), Article 21 (1) of the Punishment of Acts of Arranging Sexual Traffic Act (abandoning of a deadly weapon), Article 260 (1)

F. Defendant 6

Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of violence and the choice of fines) and Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying evidence and the selection of fines)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed by the most severe punishment)

(b) Defendant 5: the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes resulting from the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc., which is the most severe punishment (the aggregated with the long-term punishment for each of the above crimes)];

(c) Defendant 6: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment for the destruction of evidence heavier than punishment (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above two crimes)]

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Defendant 6: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

A human life is a source of human dignity that cannot be altered from this world, and human dignity begins from this world. A person’s life is unable to recover if it is lost once, and an act of infringing a person’s life cannot be used for any reason for the most serious infringement against human dignity. In particular, even though one’s own life should be taken and combat combat action should be taken, the life of the soldiers who boomed in the name of the State is serious and solid above all, so the State’s soldiers are obliged to perform the duty of national defense and return it to their family and society again.

Nevertheless, the victims of 20 years of age, who were young young people, did not receive any protection and help in an isolated space, and died due to cumulative assault. As a result, all the elbs and desires of life that they were living and did not go so far far far, and they did not find ways to cure them, so far as they were unable to accept.As they need to respect the right of living people, or as they need to protect the remaining people, it is reasonable to set the criminal liability against the perpetrator in order to give priority to the suppression of the selbs and desire for the selbs of life that they were living.

2. Degree of damage and circumstances at the time;

① 피해자는 전입 당시 활기찬 모습, 열정적인 모습의 신병이었으며(증거기록 520쪽), 피고인 1이 선임병이 되기 전까지 의무반에는 폭행 등이 없었다(소송기록 1002쪽). 그러나 피고인 1이 선임병이 된 이후부터 군기를 잡는다는 이유로 후임병들에게 폭행과 가혹행위를 하였고, 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4, 피고인 6, 피해자는 피고인 1을 두려워하게 되었다. 또한 피고인 2, 피고인 3, 피고인 4는 피고인 1을 두려워하면서도 폭행과 가혹행위에 점차 둔감해져갔고, 피해자에 대하여 직접 폭행과 가혹행위를 하기에 이르렀다. ② 피고인 1은 후임병들에게 ‘앞으로 잘못하면 개처럼 기어 다니게 해주겠다’(소송기록 2418쪽), ‘짐승 같이 질질 기어 다니게 해주겠다’(소송기록 1047쪽), ‘고충을 제기하면 가족을 길바닥에 나앉게 하겠다’(소송기록 1397쪽)고 말하고, 피해자가 맘에 들지 않는다는 이유로 관물대 밑에 구부린 채로 들어갔다 나오게 한 뒤 ‘개처럼 기어봐라’고 지시하여 기어 다니게 하고, ‘멍멍’하고 짖게 하고, 과자를 던지며 피해자로 하여금 개처럼 입으로 주워 먹게 하였다(증거기록 1542쪽). 심지어는 가래침을 뱉고 핥아 먹게 하고, 강제로 음식물을 먹게 한 뒤 주먹으로 얼굴을 때려 입에서 튀어나와 바닥에 떨어진 음식물을 핥아 먹도록 하였다. 피해자가 전입오기 전까지 폭행과 가혹행위의 주된 피해자였던 피해자의 선임병인 피고인 6은 피해자를 위한 조언으로 ‘개처럼 되라. 개처럼 행동해야 산다’고 조언해 주었고 당시의 상황을 ‘짐승으로도 취급해주지 않는 선임들에게 두려움, 증오, 독기가 가득 차있었는데 어디로 표출할 수가 없었다’고 진술하고 있다(소송기록 2941, 2942쪽). ③ 피고인들은 피해자에게 화가 나는 경우 피해자를 관물대 밑에 웅크리고 들어가게 한 후 짧게는 5분에서 길게는 1시간가량 나오지 못하게 한 후 웅크리고 있는 피해자를 발로 폭행하였고 사망 며칠 전부터는 피해자가 잠을 제대로 자지 못하게 하였다(소송기록 889쪽, 890쪽, 980쪽, 증거기록 1230쪽). ④ 피고인 1은 자신의 폭행 등으로 피해자가 다리를 절고 있음에도 아픈척 한다는 이유로 무릎으로 양쪽 허벅지를 찍는 등 피해자가 아파하는 허벅지 부위를 60-70여회 폭행하였고 피해자가 ‘살려주세요’라고 말하고 있음에도 오히려 피해자의 입을 막고 오전 동안 폭행한 후 인근 부대로 놀기 위해 내려갔고(증거기록 888, 898쪽), 당시 피해자는 이 폭행으로 무릎이 부어올라 무릎이 보이지 않을 정도가 되었다. ⑤ 2014. 3. 23. 피해자는 피고인들의 폭행으로 허벅지가 부어 못 걸을 정도여서 제대로 앉기조차 어려운 상태였다. 피해자는 그 고통으로 인해 피고인 3이 ‘앉아’라고 지시했음에도 앉겠다는 대답만 하고 앉지 못하고 있었는데 피고인 4가 어깨를 잡고 억지로 앉히고 그 과정에서 피해자가 아파하며 옆으로 넘어졌음에도 피고인 4는 ‘꾀부리지 마라’며 화를 냈고, 피해자를 생활관에 데려와 부어있는 피해자의 허벅지를 눈으로 확인 후에도 피해자의 허벅지를 손가락으로 수십 회 찔렀다(소송기록 354-357, 2504쪽, 증거기록 91쪽). ⑥ 또한 피고인 1은 피해자에게 종교행사를 가지 못하게 하고, 면회를 가지 않는 것이 좋겠다는 취지로 말하였을 뿐만 아니라(증거기록 152쪽), 피고인 6과 피해자에게 다량의 치약을 먹게 하고, 침상에 눕게 한 후 얼굴에 물고문 하듯이 물을 5분 동안 부었다(증거기록 823쪽, 867쪽). ⑦ 피고인 1은 마대자루, 주먹, 발로 폭행하거다 힘이 들면 피고인 3이나 피고인 4로 하여금 이어서 폭행하게 하였고(증거기록 135쪽), 폭행 후에 자신이 쉬는 시간에도 피해자로 하여금 앉았다 일어서기를 시키거나 기마자세를 시켜 지속적으로 피해자를 괴롭혔고 이로 인해 피해자의 신체는 극도로 쇠약해져 갔고 정신적으로도 피폐해져 갔다. 당시 피해자가 느꼈을 고통을 미루어 판단하여 본다면 그 잔악함의 끝은 도무지 상상할 수 없는 것이다 ⑧ 특히 4. 5.과 4. 6. 이틀간의 폭행과 가혹행위의 정도는 극악하다는 말로도 부족하다고 할 것이다. 3월 초순경부터 지속적으로 폭행과 가혹행위를 당한 피해자의 상태는 극도로 쇠약한 상태였음에도 불구하고 사망 직전부터 3일 동안 잠을 거의 자지 못하고, 피해자가 다른 사람들 눈에 띠는 것이 싫다는 이유로 주로 식사시간에 폭행 및 가혹행위를 하여 피해자가 제대로 된 식사를 하지 못하게 하였고, 결국 피해자는 사망 직전 이틀간은 1끼의 식사밖에 하지 못하게 하였다(증거기록 185 쪽, 1505쪽). 또한 깨어 있는 시간에도 지속적으로 폭행과 가혹행위는 계속되었다. 약 한 달 동안 피해자가 당한 폭행과 가혹행위를 목격하거나 직접 가해한 피고인들이 4. 5. 아침 환자들의 이목을 피하기 위해 피해자를 창고로 데려가 피고인 4로 하여금 망을 보게 하고 피고인 1과 피고인 3은 피해자의 허벅지 상태를 알고 있음에도 로우킥(허벅지를 발이나 정강이로 차는 행위) 하듯이 계속해서 폭행하였고, 이렇게 폭행을 당한 후 의무반으로 복귀한 피해자를 피고인 2가 주먹으로 얼굴을, 발로 복부를 폭행하였다(증거기록 120쪽, 336쪽, 1483쪽). ⑨ 4. 5. 피고인 1이 피해자에게 자신이 말한 것 중에 감명 깊은 것을 이야기하라고 질문하였는데 피해자가 피고인 1의 아버지가 건달이었다는 것이 감명 깊다고 대답하자 이후 더욱 폭행과 얼차려가 가혹해졌으며 피해자가 다음 날 16:00경 사망에 이를 때까지 잠을 재우지 않고 사실상 계속하여 폭행 및 가혹행위를 하였다(소송기록 1404쪽, 1458쪽). 특히 4. 5. 24:00 경에는 피고인 1은 피해자의 런닝셔츠 멱살부위을 잡고 흔들다가 찢어졌고, 피해자가 다른 런닝셔츠을 입었는데 다시 화가 난다는 이유로 피해자의 런닝셔츠를 다시 찢는 등에 비추어 보면 피고인 1은 극도의 흥분상태였음을 알 수 있다(증거기록 318쪽, 1420쪽). ⑩ 피고인 1은 자신이 잠을 재우지 않았을 뿐만 아니라 자신의 폭행 및 가혹행위로 피해자가 제대로 걸을 수 없게 되었음에도 불구하고 피해자가 아침 점호 중 뜀걸음에 뒤쳐졌다는 이유로 손과 무릎으로 피해자를 25대 정도 때리다가 손과 무릎이 아프다며 피고인 4에게 때리게 하였고, 피고인 4는 피해자를 엎드려뻗쳐를 시킨 후에 무방비 상태의 피해자를 3대씩 여러 차례 폭행하던 중 폭행의 충격으로 인해 자신의 다리가 부어오르자 피고인 3이 이어서 폭행하였다(소송기록 1038쪽, 2501쪽). ⑪ 피고인 2와 피고인 3은 피해자의 상태를 확인하고 의무반에서 처리할 수 있을 정도가 아니라고 판단하고 피고인 1에게 의무반외에서의 진료나 군의관 진단을 건의했음에도(소송기록 2304쪽, 증거기록 1569쪽), 피고인 1은 병원에 가거나 군의관에게 진료를 받으면 폭행사실이 드러날 것을 우려하여 수액을 맞고 안티프라민을 발라주고 좀 지나다보면 잠잠해지겠지라고 판단한 후 피고인 2와 피고인 3의 건의를 받아들이지 않았다(소송기록 2452쪽). ⑫ 수액의 처방에 있어서 피고인 1은 ‘갓트 빨리 올려서 빨리 맞게 하고, 깨워서 냉동식품 먹자’고 말하여 군의관 처방없이 갓트 수를 높인 후 평소보다 수액이 빨리 들어가도록 하고, 피해자의 신체상태가 극도로 심각한 상황이었음을 피고인들 모두 인식하고 있었음에도 불구하고 피고인 1은 본부포대로 이발을 하기 위해 떠나고, 피고인 2는 게임이나 노래를 하기 위해 생활관을 떠나고, 피고인 3과 피고인 4는 텔레비젼으로 코미디 프로그램을 시청하였다(증거기록 321쪽, 1346쪽)는 점을 고려해보면 피고인들이 피해자에게 수액을 맞게 한 것이 과연 피해자의 건강 회복을 위한 것이었는지 피해사실을 숨기기 위한 것에 불과하였는지에 대하여 의문이 들게 하며, 피고인들이 얼마나 폭행과 가혹행위에 둔감하게 되었는지 알 수 있다고 할 것이다. ⑬ 또한, 수액주사바늘을 제거한 이유 역시 피해자를 위한 것이 아니라 피해자가 음식물을 핥아 먹는 것이 불편해 보인다는 이유에 불과하였다. ⑭ 수액 주사바늘을 빼고 그 부분에 지혈하고 있는 피해자를 피고인 4는 엎드려뻗쳐 시키고 복부 부위를 발로 차 폭행하였고, 물을 마시고 싶다는 피해자에게 물 마실 기회조차 주지 않고, 피고인들의 폭행으로 심한 상해를 입은 피해자가 기마자세를 제대로 하지 못한다는 이유로 피고인 1은 피고인 2와 피고인 4에게 망을 보게 한 후 피고인 3과 함께 침상바닥에 피해자를 넘어뜨린 후 발로 밟았고 그 충격으로 피해자는 자리에서 일어났다가 그대로 바닥에 쓰러졌다. 그럼에도 피고인 1은 피해자의 멱살을 잡고 ‘꾀병부리지 마라’고 한 뒤 실신한 상태로 부축해 앉아 있는 피해자의 가슴을 발로 1회 찼다(증거기록 1495쪽). ⑮ 이후 피해자가 병원으로 후송되어 의식불명의 상태에 빠졌는데도 피고인들은 사망경위에 대해 허위로 진술할 것을 공모하고 피해자의 수첩이나 유품 등을 소각함으로써 적극적으로 증거를 인멸하기에 이르렀다.

As such, the continuous frequency and strength of the Defendants’ continuous assault are so serious that it is impossible or unreasonable to divide the number of crimes by individual assault act, as well as to divide the number of crimes by individual assault act. In such a situation, it is difficult to see that the suffering of a member of the ancient society, who was so heavy that the victim might be negligent, is difficult, and it cannot be said that the end of the deliberation of fear would have been delayed.

3. As to Defendant 1

Although it is generally difficult to see that Defendant 1’s motive is the motive to justify the crime of cutting a person’s life, Defendant 1’s motive in this case cannot be understood significantly. In addition, Defendant 1, taking advantage of his position as an appointed soldier, made it difficult for humans to understand a medical life officer who did not commit violence and cruel acts, and led and presided over the crime.

Considering the fact that Defendant 1, who committed a serious and unfortunate crime, such as an unfortunate treatment, and whose bereaved family members committed a serious crime in this Tribunal, appeals against Defendant 1 who committed a serious crime in this Tribunal, Defendant 1’s degree of responsibility, and the general prevention purpose of punishment that should not cause an unfortunate crime in our military, Defendant 1 is bound to choose a long-term imprisonment.

However, in light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the pleadings of this case, Defendant 1 is not the planned murder leading person, but the willful negligence was determined to have been committed, the sentence of 12 years has been rendered to Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, who are co-offenders, and the charge of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the charge of not guilty of the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the victim's bereaved family members (one million won) deposited a certain amount for the victim's bereaved family members, there is no record of criminal punishment, and it is difficult to conclude that there is no room for edification and improvement in the future in light of the above character and behavior and career as seen above. In light of all the sentencing conditions indicated in the arguments of this case, the imprisonment of 45 years with prison labor of the lower court is somewhat more important when considering the present age of the defendant. In addition, considering all the sentencing conditions indicated in this case, such as the family relation, age, character, career, environment, environment, circumstance and result of the

4. Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4

Although Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 attempted not to assault the victim, they could not have been forced to do so, and Defendant 1 stated to the effect that there was no use of any violence before Defendant 1 created a violent atmosphere. It is understood that Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 did not actively commit a crime and that there was a circumstance under which he had no choice but to participate at the time.

Examining Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4’s criminal act, the fact that malicious was committed not in any particular form but in a sincere daily appearance. Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, who did not commit assault and cruel acts against others before the occurrence of Defendant 1’s assault, were exposed to, or directly assaulted, Defendant 1’s assault and cruel acts, and were gradually dismissed, and actively assaulted the victims or was involved in, Defendant 1’s assault and cruel acts. Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 were asked about such daily nature, and they did not express any objection or refusal to Defendant 1. Ultimately, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 got involved in the act of assault and cruel acts, which led to the aggravation of the body of Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4’s death, which led to the aggravation of the body of Defendant 4, which led to the aggravation of the body of the victims, and subsequently the victim’s death became more illegal.

Considering this point, it is necessary to strictly punish Defendants 2, 3, and 4.

However, at the time of the trial, both Defendants 2, 3, and 4 wished to the full bench that the victim’s bereaved family member would have disturbed the Defendant 2, 3, and 4 as long as the law permits the victim’s bereaved family member to do so. Defendants 2, 3, and 4 are determined to have participated in the violence led and presided by Defendant 1. Defendants 2 and 3 do not seem to have committed an act of assaulting the victim’s fatal injury. Defendants 3 and 4 have committed an act of assaulting the victim under the direction of Defendant 1; Defendant 4 has been continuously committed an act of assaulting the victim; Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 have no record of criminal punishment; Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 have no record of criminal punishment; Defendant 2, Defendant’s age of imprisonment with prison labor for more than 20 young young young people; Defendant 3 and Defendant 2’s experience in the crime of this case; Defendant 3 and Defendant 4’s experience in the crime of this case; Defendant 2, etc.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the summary of the facts charged regarding the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Retaliatory Crimes, etc.) is as stated in Article 5. A. 5. D. As examined in the above, this part of the facts charged falls under a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of

2. The charge against Defendant 5, of the charge of the instant case, which led to a subordinate crime.

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendant is a medical support officer of the duty force of the duty force team of the headquarters of the Seoul Special Self-Governing Province, the Do governor of the Dong-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is in charge of the duty to guide and supervise the father in order to prevent any occurrence of the military life of the subordinate subordinate soldiers, such as beating, verbal abuse, and other harsh acts.

On March 18, 2014, the Defendant confirmed on March 18, 2014 that Non-Indicted 3 was assaulted by Non-Indicted 4, who was a soldier belonging to the above medical team, on at least 10 occasions from Defendant 1 of the Cick on March 15, 2014, and on the same day, Non-Indicted 3’s bucks that she was forced to walk.

In such a case, as a medical support officer, he/she has taken necessary measures to investigate the details of the assault, confirm the damage, prevent additional violence and cruel acts, and report to the commander on the facts of assault and cruel acts, etc. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not take necessary measures to file a petition for committing a crime jointly with many subordinates. Nevertheless, even though he/she knew that Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who is a soldier belonging to the medical care team, knew or was committing a joint assault over 16 times as indicated in the attached list of crimes, he/she did not take necessary measures to file the petition.

Accordingly, the Defendant, without any justifiable reason, was aware that he committed an assault jointly by the Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4, who was subordinate to the Defendant, and did not perform all necessary measures for the petition.

B. Determination

As examined in the above 6. A. 2, since this part of the facts charged falls under a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 380 of the Military Court Act. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of a crime of abandonment of duties as stated in the same facts charged within the scope of

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

[Attachment Form 5]

Minister of Military Affairs, Colonel-Colonel-Colonel (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea

1) The petition of appeal against Defendant 6 of the military prosecutor was filed after the lapse of the period for filing a lawsuit.

Note 2) The inner shock is a telecommunication disorder that occurs due to a relatively wide range of crypical blood so as to reduce crypical blood volume. It can be combined with a crypical, heat hold, frame, long-term damage, local color charging, etc. As the crypical blood volume decreases, it is time to show an overall white view or to view special changes in internal organs. In the case of shock caused by the reduction of crypical blood volume, the patient’s blood pressure is generally reduced, and cryp and weak, and the pulmonary and rapid is reduced. Food is 3 times after the lapse of crypherc, and there is no reaction. When it is known that 0% or more of the cypical blood pressure, it is known that 0% or more of the cypical shock and 40% more of the crypical shock are known to be known to be 0% or more of the cypical blood pressure.

3) Article 40 of the Military Life Regulations 120 of the Army Regulations (personal personal guidance) ① A superior shall endeavour to thoroughly grasp the body’s personal affairs and resolve personal difficulties at an early stage through a daily observation and personal interview. ② The preparation of a personal interview and interview file shall be conducted once a month in the integrated management system for joint and several administrative affairs, and the number of soldiers interested in the personal affairs and other persons shall be determined as necessary by the commander, and the management of the personal affairs shall be strengthened for the necessary personnel.

Note 4) On April 6, 198, Defendant 6, who had been divingd in the Abrupt medical room, called Defendant 1, who read, “I would like to stimulate so, I would like to do so,” and ordered Defendant 6 to assault the victim (Evidence No. 518 pages, 826 pages).

(5) Defendant 2’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant 1 did not put the victim’s arms at the time of assaulting Defendant 1 on April 6, 1999, on the premise of sentencing. At the time, Defendant 2’s statement that Defendant 2 was flexible, Defendant 1’s statement was made by Defendant 1, and most of Defendant 2 who led to an investigation and a trial, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 did not have any statement that Defendant 2 deemed that Defendant 2 was suffering from the victim even in the same space, and thus, Defendant 2 did not have any statement that Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 had taken the victim, so it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant 2 did not have the victim.