However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The charge of attempted murder among the facts charged in the instant case is acquitted.

The summary of the judgment on the acquittal shall be publicly announced.

In 204, the defendant was a person working as a member of the Korean community of "B," a Japanese violence organization, and C, D, and E were the main force of Daejeon, and thereafter, he was a person living together in the house located in the U.S. located in the U.S., Japan.

Around March 15, 2007, the Defendant 15, 02:00, when the victim I (22 years of age at the time) who is a Japanese violent organization (hereinafter referred to as "H") in the foregoing drinking house, she drinks alcoholic beverages in the third floor of the new Don-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City G building, together with the behaviors, including C, at the same time. On the ground that the victim I (22 years of age at the time) who is a Japanese violent organization (hereinafter referred to as "H"), who was in the foregoing drinking house, does not have personnel. Accordingly, the victim and the staff of H, who are joint with the victim, committed a collective violence against the Defendant and C from the stairs of the foregoing drinking house, and the Defendant saw away from the escape of the head of the drinking house, and C, the head of the drinking house was teared.

Accordingly, the Defendant and C thought that he had been engaged in the post facto communication to the victim, and C will die by phoneing to D, and C will return the victim to the above accommodation with the late night, and she sleep with D and E, and the Defendant instructed C to extend the time frame to work with the victim by making phone call at the above accommodation at around 17:00 on the same day. Accordingly, the Defendant and C, D and E did not have a good question due to the behavior against the Korean people in Pyeongtaek Japan, and the Defendant was aware of the victim's new shares that he had been kept at the front time with the victim's view to the death of the Defendant and C, etc., and the victim's injury to the victim's new shares that he had been kept at the front time with the victim's contact with the victim's staff, etc., and the Defendant knew that it was under the jurisdiction of the Japanese government.

Accordingly, the defendant prepared to kill the victim in collusion with C, D, and E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of C and E in part;

1. Statement made by the prosecution against C (No. 76);

1. Each police statement made to I (No. 39, 45, 46);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 255, 250(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The consideration of favorable circumstances deemed to be the following reasons for sentencing):

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Special Considerations for Sentencing as well as for Sentencing)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with labor for one month to five years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

There is no sentencing criteria for the murder preliminary crime.

3. Determination of sentence;

The Defendant prepared and prepared murder with C, D, and E with a deadly weapon to be retaliationed against the victim due to assault by the victim. A deadly weapon prepared by the Defendant was 's knife, knife, and golf knife’ and, if not, there was a risk of large-scale blood transfusion between H assistant and H assistant staff in the absence of two directions. Although the commencement of murder was not possible with a deadly weapon, the Defendant’s act did not reach the commencement of murder but constitutes a serious crime that undermines fundamental values of our society as it lacks respect for life. The Defendant directly drives his own vehicle and reported his plan to two items, and appears to play a pivotal role in murdering expenses. The possibility of the Defendant’s criticism is very high, and severe punishment is inevitable.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case, the fact that the crime does not reach the actual commencement, and the fact that the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind, the punishment as the order shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character, character, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance after the crime, etc.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

On March 15, 2007, the Defendant, along with C, D, and E, called "L in the new stocks Kuk-gu K on March 15, 2007." At the coffee shop, the Defendant was aware of the fighting with the Defendant and C, and N, which was the main force of Busan, had the victim, who was the victim of H's (38 years of age). At this point, N, as the victim of H's organization, contacted the victim to enter the victim's 'H', such as the victim's 'H' as the victim', but the Defendant did not look at the victim's right-hand knife, but did not look at the victim's right-hand knife, and the Defendant did not look at the victim's right-hand knife at the victim's right-hand knife and did not 'D' work.

Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to kill the victim in collusion with C, D, and E.

2. Determination on admissibility of evidence

Among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the most direct and flexible evidence concerning this part of the facts charged is the police interrogation protocol (No. 12,13) and each prosecutor's interrogation protocol (No. 61) about D. The defendant and the defense counsel agree that the police interrogation protocol (No. 47) about N containing some unfavorable statements against the defendant and the prosecutor's protocol of statement (No. 63) are admitted as evidence. Thus, the admissibility of each of the above evidences is examined first.

A. Each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D is a person who actually holds the status of the defendant and accomplice, and the content of the facts charged by the prosecutor was also attempted to kill the defendant in collusion with D. Therefore, each police suspect interrogation protocol regarding D is inadmissible in accordance with Article 312(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act as long as the defendant consented to the purpose of avoidance of contents on the trial date.

(b) Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol concerning D;

1) The burden of proof of guilt is to be proved by the prosecutor, and there is also the prosecutor with the burden of proof as to the requirements of Articles 314 and 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act for the admissibility of hearsay evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6162, Mar. 14, 2003). According to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in order to use the protocol under Article 312 of the same Act or the documents under Article 313 of the same Act as evidence, first must be the case where the person who requires the statement is unable to make a statement at a preparatory hearing or on the trial date due to death, illness, residence in a foreign country, or any other reason; second, the preparation of the statement or document must be made under particularly reliable circumstances; second, the term "when it is made under particularly reliable circumstances" means that there is little room for false entry in the contents of the statement or the preparation of the document, and there is specific and external circumstances that guarantee the credibility or arity of the contents of the statement (see, etc.).

2) In light of the fact that the court sent a writ of summons of witness several times with D’s domicile and residence, but was not served, and that the report of detection of D’s location was submitted to this court as a result of the request for detection of location was submitted, and that D’s location was not discovered even after the prosecutor directly searched and investigated, it constitutes a situation where D’s location is unknown. Therefore, the requirement of “where a person who needs a statement” as stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act regarding each protocol of examination of suspect regarding D prepared by the prosecutor is unable to make a statement on the date of trial” was satisfied.

We seem to think.

3) D에 대한 각 검찰 피의자신문조서가 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행해진 진술을 기재한 것인지 여부에 관하여 본다. 앞서 본 바와 같이 '특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행하여진 때'란 허위 개입의 여지가 거의 없는 경우를 말하므로 '매우 강한 정도의 신빙성 입증이 요청된다'고 할 것인데, 어떤 범죄의 공범으로 수사 받고 있는 사람은 다른 공범에게 그 책임을 전가 또는 분담시키기 위해 허위 진술을 할 유혹을 받기 쉬워우므로 그와 같은 진술을 한 경우 허위 개입의 여지가 많다고 할 것이므로, 검사는 형사소송법 제314조가 규정하고 있는 '특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행하여진 때'의 요건을 충분히 입증하여야 한다. 이 사건에 관하여 보면, ① D은 2010. 3. 26. 검찰에서 '갑자기 C가 오른손을 왼쪽 가슴에 갖다 대면서 람보칼이 있다고 눈짓으로 신호를 보냈고, 피고인은 새벽에 망신을 당했는데 체면을 세우려면 이라도 작업해야 하지 않겠냐고 하였습니다. 그래서 저는 C에게 CCTV가 있는데 어떻게 하려고 하느냐고 물었더니 C는 새벽에 폭행을 당한 일로 많이 흥분해 있었던 터라 피고인과 함께 이를 작업하기로 했던 것입니다'(증거기록 제6권 502쪽)라고 진술하였고, 2010. 3. 30. 검찰에서 '갑자기 피고인이 저희 일행들에게 "안 되겠다. 저거라도 오늘 작업해야겠다"라고 말했고, 옆에 있던 E이 연장도 없는데 어떻게 작업을 하느냐고 묻자 C가 오른손으로 자기 왼쪽 가슴에 갖다 대면서 람보칼을 가지고 있다고 말했습니다. 그래서 제가 이쪽은 CCTV가 있는데 어떻게 할 것이냐고 물었더니 그러자 C는 아무 말 없이 가만히 있었고, 피고인은 "여기까지 왔으면 저거라도 작업하고 가야지 않냐"라고 하였습니다'(증거기록 제6권 509쪽)라고 진술하였다가 2010. 4. 7. 검찰에서 '갑자기 피고인이 저희 일행들에게 "안 되겠다. 저기라도 오늘 작업해야겠다"라고 말했고, 제가 피고인에게 "연장도 없는데 어떻게 작업을 하느냐"고 묻자 C가 오른손으로 자기 왼쪽 가슴에 갖다 대면서 람보칼을 가지고 있다고 말하였고, 제가 이쪽은 CCTV가 있는데 어떻게 할 것이냐고 물었더니, C는 아무 말 없이 가만히 있었고, 피고인은 "여기까지 왔으면 저거라도 작업하고 가야지 않냐"라고 하였습니다'(증거기록 제6권 528쪽)라고 진술하는 등 이에 대한 살인의 결의를 공모하게 된 경위에 관한 각 진술 간에도 불일치하거나 일관되지 못한 면이 있는 점, ② D은 일관되게 피고인이 이 사건 범행 당시 O를 가리키면서 "작업해"라고 소리친 사실이 있다고 진술하였으나, 이는 '피고인이 0에 대한 살인을 지시한 사실이 없다'는 취지의 C, E의 각 법정진술과 부합하지 않는 점, ③ 피고인은 경찰, 검찰 및 이 법정에 이르기까지 D과의 대질 또는 증인신문을 통해 피고인에게 불리한 D의 진술 내용을 탄핵할 반대신문의 기회를 전혀 부여받지 못한 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 볼 때, 검찰에서 이루어진 D의 각 진술은, 공판정에서의 직접 신문을 거치지 않은 이상 '특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행하여진 때'에 해당한다고 보기 부족하다.

4) Therefore, each prosecutor's interrogation protocol regarding D is inadmissible.

(c) Police suspect interrogation protocol and prosecutor's protocol regarding N;

1) In light of the fact that this court sent a summons of witness several times to the N which can be identified on the record, but was not served, and that the report of detection of N was submitted to this court, and that N was not discovered even if the prosecutor directly searched and investigated, and that N was not discovered, it constitutes a situation in which N’s location is unknown. Therefore, the requirement of “where a person who requires a statement” as stipulated in Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act is unable to make a statement on the date of trial is satisfied.

2) N에 대한 경찰 피의자신문조서(순번 47) 및 검찰 진술조서가 특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행해진 진술을 기재한 것인지에 관하여 본다. ① N은 2009. 3. 19. 경찰에서 '이가 말하기를 피고인이 그랬다고 했습니다.2) 저도 그 순간 깜짝 놀란 것으로 저에게 화해를 시켜 달라고 해놓고 칼을 가지고 왔다는 것이 생각해보니 잘못되었다고 봅니다', '며칠 있다가 피고인에게 전화가 와서 죄송하다는 말을 해서 제가 그 당시 저 또한 그곳에 있었으면 잘못될 수 있었다는 생각에 화를 많이 냈었던 것으로 기억을 합니다 (증거기록 제4권 638쪽)라고 진술하였고, 2010. 4. 9. 검찰에서 '신주꾸에서 차량으로 1시간 30분 정도 거리에 있는 지바에서 피고인이 동생 3명을 데리고 온 것으로 봐서 피고인이 주도해서 사건이 발생한 것으로 생각됩니다', '사진만으로만 봤을 때는 피고인이 주도했던 것으로 보입니다'(증거기록 제6권 577, 578쪽)라고 진술하였는데, 위 각 진술은 N의 추측 내지 타인으로부터 전달받은 내용에 기초한 것으로 보이는 점, ② 위 각 진술은 '피고인이 0에 대한 살인을 지시한 사실이 없다'는 취지의 C, E의 각 법정진술과 부합하지 않는 점, ③ 피고인은 경찰, 검찰 및 이 법정에 이르기까지 N과의 대질 또는 증인신문을 통해 피고인에게 불리한 N의 진술 내용을 탄핵할 반대신문의 기회를 전혀 부여받지 못한 점 등의 사정을 종합하여 볼 때, 수사기관에서 이루어진 N의 각 진술은, 공판정에서의 직접 신문을 거치지 않은 이상 '특히 신빙할 수 있는 상태 하에서 행하여진 때'에 해당한다고 보기 부족하다.

3) Therefore, the police interrogation protocol of N (No. 47) and the prosecutor’s protocol of statement are inadmissible.

3. Determination as to the establishment of a crime

A. The facts constituting the elements of a crime prosecuted in a criminal trial are the prosecutor’s burden of proof, and the recognition of facts constituting a crime ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. In a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to fully reach the extent that such conviction would lead to such conviction, even if the prosecutor’s assertion or defense is inconsistent or unreasonable, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 2011).

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the evidence alone submitted by the prosecutor is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant committed the crime of murder in collusion with C, D, and E, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

① We consistently stated to the effect that “A defendant does not have any instruction to murder 0 against her own knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife)”. C does not have any ground for retrial under C’s final judgment.

E also testified in this court to the effect that there was no fact that the Defendant ordered the murder of 0, and that the Defendant alone knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.).

③ This part of the facts charged indicated that C had a knife and knife recorded that the Defendant had a knife with knife, and had a knife with knife. However, on March 15, 2007, the date of the crime in this case, the Defendant stated that the police officers of the Japanese New Stocks Police Station do not have knife knife knife with knife with knife as Korean horse." However, if knife with knife with knife, the Defendant stated that knife had no knife and knife with knife with knife, and that knife had no knife with knife with knife, and that knife had no knife with knife with knife.

4) A criminal judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2010 High Court 2010Do2377) and a criminal judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2017Do1249, Supreme Court 2017Do1754) on D’s accomplice status were not recorded more than 3 times and it is difficult to find that the Defendant had no specific information on CCTV as at the time of this case’s crime, and that it is hard to find that the Defendant had no specific information on CCTV as at March 15, 207, 207, by using CCTV recording installed at the scene of this case’s crime. However, it is also difficult to find that the Defendant had no specific information on CCTV as at the time of 20:0:0,000 out of 7:0, and that it is hard to find that there was no other evidence that the Defendant had no specific information on CCTV-related facts.

⑤ As seen earlier, the Defendant and C, D, and E prepared murder against I, but it appears that the resolution of murder was de facto interrupted by an ombudsman with a deadly weapon installed in two items prior to any clerical error in the new shares Kuc-gu in the office. This is a person entirely separate from I and the Defendant et al., and it is difficult to deem that there was a motive for the Defendant to resolve murder against C, D, E, etc. solely on the ground thatO was a ship of I, and that it was difficult to view that there was a motive for the Defendant to resolve murder against C, D, E, etc. solely because the Defendant was a ship of I., and the Defendant moved to the new shares Kuc-gu along with the scene of the crime of C, and that the Defendant did not actively engage in the act to restrain C, it is insufficient to recognize a conspiracy relationship requiring strict proof as a constituent element

4. 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, and the summary of the judgment is publicly announced under Article 58(2

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges Kim Gin-young

2) Since N’s statement on this part was made by the person making the original statement at this Court and made a statement, it is not admissible as to the defendant (Articles 316(2) and 312(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act).

3) When the victim committed the crime, and there was a long time, a male (C) who flaged the Japanese police officer with a 'test-flag’ and eye, was put in the moet her hand, despite having been different from one hand, even though she had already been her hand, her hand was opened as soon as possible with the fear that she was preparing to take the deadly weapons. The victim started to her hand in this context with the fear that she was in preparation to take out the deadly weapons. In addition, the victim’s statement made a large voice that she would be “not, or not,” and the victim’s statement was written (Evidence No. 3, 168, hearing report of evidence record). Rather, according to the victim’s statement, the victim’s loss was found to have been left in the left part of her hand before her hand.