A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

The number of detention days before the sentence of the judgment below shall be included in the above sentence.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Innocence on the defendant's death or injury

The scope of the trial on the part of murder shall be examined from the scope of the trial.

With respect to this case which was prosecuted by a prosecutor for committing murder, the court below found him guilty as a crime of bodily injury without the amendment procedure of indictment and sentenced him to the charges, and the prosecutor and the defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, etc. In the case before the remanding of the case, the court prior to the remanding of the case was judged not guilty on the grounds that the part of murder, which is the main charge, was the primary charge, was judged not guilty, and only the part of the injury, which is the ancillary charge, was found not guilty on the grounds that the prosecutor appealed for the same reasons, and the appeal was filed by the Supreme Court after receiving the appeal from the defendant, and the facts that the case was remanded to the court for the same reason

Therefore, it is reasonable to see that the first instance court's judgment that the prosecutor acquitted the defendant on the ground of the murder is not guilty of the crime of murder, at least by failing to file an appeal against the appellate court's judgment, and at least it is no longer possible to bring an objection against the defendant. Therefore, the first instance court's judgment is based on the scope of the trial on the existence of the injury or death.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

Of the summary of the defendant's appeal grounds and the summary of the defendant's defense counsel's appeal grounds, first, the court below acknowledged the defendant's death or injury even though the defendant did not inflict any injury on the victim, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below. Second, in light of the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the sentencing of the court below which sentenced 15 years to the defendant is too unreasonable, and despite the defendant's intention to murder, the court below's finding the defendant as the death or injury was erroneous and affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the prosecutor's appeal grounds for the appeal are examined as follows. The prosecutor's appeal ground for the defendant's appeal ground for the defendant's appeal ground for the death or injury is erroneous, and there is no proof of the crime of injury, and the court below's finding the defendant guilty has affected the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and the decision of the court below is reversed as to the remaining crime of injury or injury under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 7 of the Criminal Act.

On October 1984, between 22:00 and 01:00 the next day from 22:0,000 on the date, Daegu (detailed number omitted). (The method of walking 1 omitted) using a card 52 to put one million to 1,000 to 1,000 won each time, using card 52, and then gambling in the corresponding year over 40 to 50 times, as shown in the list of crimes in the annexed sheet.

1. Each statement that corresponds to the trial records of the court below (the first time) by the defendant and the non-indicted 1

1. Each protocol of interrogation of the accused and non-indicted 1 prepared by the prosecutor and each protocol of interrogation of the suspect as to non-indicted 2, 3, 4, and 5 prepared by the assistant judicial police officer, corresponding statements are recorded

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the statements in the preparation of Nonindicted 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

1. The statement of Nonindicted 6 in the preparation of a judicial police assistant may be recognized by taking into account the statements corresponding thereto;

Habitual points in the ruling are as follows: (a) the Defendant spawn a variety of gamblings within a period of time; (b) the motive of the crime; (c) the size of the money sold; (d) the gambling place; (c) the occupation, import, and other circumstances of the Defendant; and (d) each fact in the ruling is proven.

3. Parts not guilty;

The summary of the facts charged of the instant case (preliminary) is that the victim was released from his body on October 24, 1985 and 11, and the victim was released from his body with his own house on the fourth floor of the Defendant’s building located, and Nonindicted 7 and 8 and Nonindicted 9 living together with the U.S. living together with the victim, for the purpose of using the victim’s string away, and then string away from her body so that the victim was released, and she would be able to take money again because the victim was released from 1string to 1string, and she would be released from 1string, and then she would be able to take away from her body and her body so that the victim would be able to take away from her body and she would be able to take away from her body softened and she would be able to take away from her body softened and she would be able to do so.

(1) Examination of the accused prepared by the assistant judicial police officer

The defendant was killed by the police for the purpose of evading the initial insurance money, but later led to the confession that he kills the victim for the same reason as shown in the facts charged. However, the defendant denies the contents of the suspect interrogation protocol in the police, and it cannot be considered as the material for recognizing the guilt.

(2) (A) The statements made by Nonindicted 11 at the court of the original trial, each statement made by Nonindicted 12, and Nonindicted 13 of the preparation of a judicial police assistant, each protocol of seizure, and the existence of subparagraph 1 of the seized evidence.

(B) Opinions of Non-Indicted 14 regarding the preparation of the witness and his seal at the original trial

According to the evidence of the above (A) at around 13:00 on October 31, 1985, the defendant sent a cable used for the crime of this case to police officers on the front sewerage of the Deputy Director of the Daegu Seogsan-dong, Daegu Seoggu, Seoggu, Daegu, Daegu, Inc., the day of the case. Thus, it is recognized that police officers operated the defendant and seized evidence 1 at the place pointing out by the defendant. Meanwhile, according to the evidence of the above (B), it seems that Non-Indicted 14 was consistent with the facts charged by the defendant's statement that the width of the color of the color in the light organization of the victim of the request for appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Research was about 0.8 centimeters and that the width of subparagraph 1 was about 0.7 centimeters and that the central part of the electric wire was about 0.7 centimeters and that it was about 10.7 centimeters, and that it is presumed that the evidence is consistent with the evidence of this case.

However, even according to the evidence of the above (B), the colors shown in the body part are not presumed to have been caused by the above evidence No. 1. Thus, even in accordance with the above evidence, the colors shown in the item of the victim's item can be caused by the above evidence No. 1 cannot be readily concluded that the above electric wires form the colors expressed in the body of the victim.

(A) According to the appraisal statement prepared by the doctor non-indicted 15, the color of the victim is horizontal 0.2 cm or 0.3 cm in width. The cable’s central part cannot be caused by No. 1, so it appears that No. 1 is likely that it was used for the crime of this case. (B) If the defendant committed the crime under the same circumstance as this facts charged, the defendant did not have enough time to throw away No. 1 on the day of this case, and the defendant stated that it was in fact on the 29th of the same month; and

(C) In addition, according to the Defendant’s statement, the motive behind the police officer’s testimony was that the radio line, which is already discovered in the region of the Defendant, where two cables used to cut the victim’s timber from the date of commencement of the investigation, is terminated by the identification of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, and the confessions cannot be used to cut off, cut, cut, cut, cut, and cut off, and then cut off, and then, the police officer was tried to find it later, and the Defendant was trying to find it later, and at the head of the investigation division of the Daegu Central Police Station in the Daegu Central Police Station, the Defendant cannot be readily concluded that it was necessary for the police officer to find that it was not necessary for the Defendant to have known that he was a criminal who was not the offender, and that there was no need for the police officer to find that it was 10 minutes of time after being asked to do so.

(3) Each written statement of Nonindicted 1 and 16 prepared by the prosecutor

According to the prosecutor's statement as to non-indicted 1 on the 26th day of the same month, the defendant was asked to inquire about where the non-indicted 1 was the victim's funeral and request that the non-indicted 1 would die, and that the non-indicted 1 would make the victim die, and the non-indicted 16 would make the victim die. According to the non-indicted 16's statement, if the defendant tried to 16 and 16 died of the defendant's wife on the 29th day of the same month, it is clear that the defendant would not have direct evidence about this case's charges, and even if the defendant did not think that the defendant was guilty of the non-indicted 16's wife, it is hard to conclude that the defendant did not have any opinion about this case's direct evidence, and that the defendant would not have any opinion about this case's criminal defendant's whereabouts at the time of this case's testimony.

(4) There are two copies (No. 7) of the statements and two copies (No. 7) seized joints of the witness Non-Indicted 17’s statement in the original trial court.

According to each of the above evidence, since Non-Indicted 17 went back to the defendant at the request of the defendant's mother at the time when the defendant is detained in the police station, and the defendant delivery was made anonymous to Non-Indicted 17, it was made anonymous to the non-Indicted 17, and it was sent to the police authority and other press organizations with a letter of the fact that the defendant was unrelated film among the articles left by the defendant, and the defendant was removed from the police station's request for removal of the film (No. 7). Thus, it was hard to conclude that the defendant was out of the police station's whereabouts, and that the defendant was out of the suspect's whereabouts near the river station, and that it was hard to find out that the defendant was out of the police station's whereabouts for the purpose of investigation, and that it was hard to find out that the defendant was out of the evidence of this case.

(5) Statement of the witness at the lower court’s trial court by Nonindicted 7

According to Non-Indicted 7’s statement at the court below’s trial by the victim’s female’s female’s female’s female’s female’s female’s female’s female in the first place of the case, and all of his clothes, clothes, and so on were opened in his room, and there was no cash of KRW 30,000 and KRW 1,100 in cash and KRW 20,000 in cash in his clothes. However, even though he was opened in his clothes, he was left in his he, and only she had shown a west, but only she was prone of her mouth. However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant was a criminal.

Examining the evidence as seen in the above facts charged, the evidence other than these evidence seems to be consistent with the facts charged, and rather, according to the various evidence examined by the court below and the trial court, it is difficult to accept as to the time of crime, the time of death of the victim, and the motive for crime as seen below. In other words, in full view of Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 19’s statements at the police and the prosecutor’s office as to the time of crime, it is recognized that the Defendant was in his house with the victim’s wife at around 11:35 on the day of the case, and that the time when the Defendant arrived at the (name 2 omitted) club is recognized to be around 11:55, since it is recognized that the time when the Defendant arrived at the (name 2 omitted) club of the victim’s wife at around 11:35 to 11:55, and therefore, it is problematic whether the Defendant could stop the Defendant from committing the instant injured offender and (name 2 omitted) clubs from the Defendant’s house.

According to the record of inspection of evidence by the court below, it is unreasonable for the court below to recognize that a vehicle takes ten minutes or more by driving a car from the first floor of the fourth floor in which the defendant was living (the name 2 omitted) to the first floor of the fourth floor (the first floor of the fourth floor in which the defendant was living, according to the statement by Non-Indicted 15 of the original witness Non-Indicted 15), and to recognize that the defendant was driving a vehicle from the fourth floor to the first floor of the fourth floor in which the defendant was living, for the reason that the defendant caused the victim to have a scarf by driving a scarf at the time for the remaining time, and finds the electric wires used by the victim to safling the victim and to safling the victim's trees when the victim was dead, and to find it difficult for the court below to recognize that the body was driven by the beginning of the vehicle from the fourth floor to the first floor in which the defendant was living.

(2) Regarding the time of the victim’s death:

According to the expert witness non-indicted 20's written expert witness's statement, the victim's death time is presumed to have been 1 to 2 hours after planting in light of the degree of extinguishing the above contents extracted from the body, and the defendant stated that he had been affected by the victim at around 11:00. Thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's intentional statement of the victim's death time at around 11:40 is contrary to the above written expert witness's statement on the ground that there is no evidence to deem that the defendant intentionally expressed the victim's life time before the victim's presumption time of death was appraised.

(3) As to the motive and circumstances of the crime:

According to the facts charged, the defendant committed a crime for the purpose of causing injury to the victim and misunderstanding that the victim was dead, and disguised into external robbery, on the ground that the victim was able to bring his/her hand into the Australia money and caused him/her to go out even though the victim was able to play his/her wind with his/her birth, even though he/she was able to do so.

However, according to the statement of the travel arrangement contract bound in the record (in the face of 52 pages) and the statement at the prosecutor's office of Nonindicted 8 (in the face of 757 pages), it can be recognized that the victim's birth, Nonindicted 7, 8, and Nonindicted 8's living together with his dependants to pay for each tourist on October 27, 1985, and that the tourist bus fee was fully paid on October 23, 1985, and the tourist bus fee was collected respectively. Thus, even if the travel day paid a full amount of the tourist bus fee, which is the largest expense for the tourism on the same day, even if the travel day still did not reach three days or remaining, it cannot be understood in light of ordinary experience that the victim failed to take care of his husband's telephone on the ground that he did not go to work, and even if the defendant was aware of the victim due to the same fact as the facts charged, it would be difficult to find out that the victim was salivatedd by the empirical rule that he was killed.

Therefore, the above evidence alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the defendant had a number of doubts as seen above and caused the victim to do so, and each evidence, such as the examination protocol of the court below, the examination protocol of the court below, the written statement on Nonindicted 8, 12, 13, 19, 21, and 22 of the judicial police assistant, or the written appraisal of Nonindicted 15 on the cause and date of the victim's death, and the written examination of the body, shall not be deemed as evidence to prove that the defendant caused the victim's death and death, and there is no other evidence to readily conclude that the defendant was guilty of the death resulting in the bodily injury.

Therefore, the decision of innocence is made in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Cho Hong-won (Presiding Judge)