2. Therefore, evidence as to the above facts charged is submitted to this court. Each statement of Nonindicted 2, 3, and 1 (section 31 of the Investigation Record) of the assistant judicial police officer is made. Each statement of Nonindicted 4, 5, and 6 in this court; each statement of Nonindicted 4, 5, and 5 in the prosecutor’s aptitude; each statement of Nonindicted 4, and 6 in the preparation of the judicial police officer; (d) the statement of Nonindicted 7 in the preparation of the judicial police officer’s evidence; (e) the statement of Nonindicted 6 in this court; (e) the statement of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 16’s written expert testimony of the Investigation Investigation Investigation Department; (e) the preparation of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 15.

A. Each statement of Nonindicted 2, 3, and 1 (No. 31 of the Investigation Record) in the preparation of a judicial police assistant seems to have been submitted as evidence for the motive of the crime of this case to the effect that the victim and Nonindicted 1 were in a relationship with the victim, and that the defendant and the victim were dead during the dispute over the above problem, but the above facts are recognized, and the fact that the defendant killed the victim as a result of liquidation cannot be acknowledged.

B. The statements made by the judicial police assistant and prosecutor with respect to Nonindicted 4 in this court, the statements made by that person in this court, the statements made by that person with Nonindicted 5 in this court, the statements made by that person with respect to Nonindicted 6 in the judicial police assistant and the statements made by that person in this court, etc., and the statements made by that person with respect to Nonindicted 6 in the judicial police assistant and the statements made by that person in this court, etc. are merely the statements made by that person to the effect that he was able to hear the Defendant's outer aggression on the day of the instant case, and that he sent his female to the hospital because he was in good faith and the victim was transferred to

다. 사법경찰관 작성의 검증조서는 그 내용중에 피고인의 변소와는 달리 피고인이 이 사건 범행일시 장소에서 피해자와 다투던중 피해자의 가슴을 1회 밀어 넘어뜨린후 피해자의 목을 조르고 함께 뒹굴었던 범행재연의 상황기재와 이를 영상으로 나타낸 사진등이 첨부되어 있기는 하나 이것만으로는 피고인이 이 사건에서 피해자의 사망원인이 된 "청산염을 입에 투여하여 동녀를 살해하였다"는 공소사실을 인정하기에는 부족할 뿐 아니라 사법경찰리 작성의 공소외 7에 대한 진술조서는 동인이 위 검증의 시행을 지켜본 참고인으로서 그 실시과정을 진술하고 있음에 불과하여 이 또한 이 사건 공소사실을 인정함에 족한 직접증거가 되지 못하고,

D. In the medical examination of the Defendant in Nonindicted 8 prepared by the doctor, it is questionable whether the above wife occurred in the process of having the victim drinked with Nonindicted 1 and the victim in the process of the crime of this case, while the Defendant was also at the time of the crime of this case, and the defendant was at the time of the crime of this case that the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was put into the victim's seat and the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was salved, and the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was salved by the victim, and the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was salved by the victim because the victim was salved by the victim.

E. According to the autopsy report prepared by the doctor, non-indicted 6's non-indicted 6's body autopsy report and the prosecutor's non-indicted 6's non-indicted 6's body autopsy report, there seems to be a shaking of the body of the victim's body, etc., and a trace of causing severe pressure on the part of the victim's body with left hand, and there is a ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the body and the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the victim's body, and the statements made by the prosecutor and the non-indicted 6 of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the ske of the victim's body and the questioning report prepared by the non-indicted 10, 11, and 12 of the ske of the victim's body.

F. Besides, evidence Nos. 1 and 12, which are seized, are confiscated at the scene of the instant crime, but it is not clear whether it is directly related to the instant crime, so long as it is not acknowledged; and

G. The witness Nonindicted 13 and 14’s statement at this Court; the prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 13, 15, and 16; each statement on Nonindicted 1, and 14 in the preparation of the judicial police assistant which was bound to the trial records of this case; each written confirmation on Nonindicted 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 in the preparation of the judicial police assistant which was bound to the trial records of this case; the investigation report on Nonindicted 23 in the Msan East East Police Station; the expert witness’s investigation report on Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 24, and 25; the written appraisal of Nonindicted 26’s expert opinion on the investigation of the research institute; the written appraisal of Nonindicted 10 and Nonindicted 11, 213, and 224 of the investigation records of this case; and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s crime of this case.

Therefore, even if examining all the evidence revealed in this court, it is not sufficient direct evidence to recognize that the defendant spawnizing infection to the victim as stated in the indictment. However, in full view of the above circumstantial evidence, it is possible to see that the victim would have spawnize liquidation salt to the defendant and the victim at the time when the victim spawnizing it to commit suicide, so if the victim did not have so, it should be based on strict evidence that the judge would not have any reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, it cannot be determined as the defendant's interest even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2686, Feb. 25, 1986). In this case, according to the witness's statement before the witness's statement in this court, the victim could not have any doubt that the victim would have spawnizing it to the victim's face without being spawnified and spawnified to the witness.

3. Ultimately, the above facts charged constitute a time when there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant shall be acquitted by the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Judges Choi Dong-dong(Presiding Judge)