1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court acknowledged the victim's head at 1985.10, by opening the 1985.10 square meters away from the 4th floor of the defendant's building located in Daegu, and by opening the 1942 square meters away from the victim's house, the victim was able to wear away from the 4th floor of the defendant's house to see where the victim was able to do so again, and the victim was able to see if the victim was able to wear away from the 1st century and then see his/her own wall again because he/she was able to see the fact that the victim was able to do so, and the victim was able to take away from the 4th floor of the defendant's house without hearing his/her horses, and then he/she was able to take off and she was able to take off the part of the victim's wall again because he/she was able to do so.

2. As above, the court below found that there are some obstacles to recognize the defendant as the crime of injury or death, and thus, it is difficult to find the mistake of mistake due to the violation of the rules of evidence in the process of recognizing the defendant as the crime of injury or death.

(1) As to the time of crime:

원심은 피고인의 항소이유에 대한 판단에서 다음과 같이 설명하고 있다. 즉 사법경찰리작성의 김정혜에 대한 진술조서(1회)에 의하면, 피해자가 그날 11:30경 김정혜에게 전화를 걸었다는 것이고, 검사 및 사법경찰리작성의 이인에 대한 각 진술조서에 의하면, 이인이 사건당일 11:35경 피고인집에 전화를 하였을때 피해자가 먼저 전화를 받아 피고인에게 바꾸어 주었고, 피고인이 이인의 독촉전화를 받고 집을 나와 피고인 경영디스코클럽에 도착한 것이 같은날 11:55경임을 알 수 있고 피고인의 집에서 위디스코클럽까지는 승용차로 적어도 10분이 걸리므로 피고인이 같은날 11:35경부터 11:45경까지 불과 10분 동안에 전선을 찾아 피해자의 목을 졸라 교사케 하고, 서랍을 열어 젖혀 외부침입강도의 소행으로 위장하고 시체를 목욕탕에 옮기고 건물 4층에서 도로로 나와 차에 시동을 걸어 출발하였다는 이야기가 되는데 이는 시간적으로 보아 도저히 불가능하다고 애써 강조함으로써 피고인 이외의 제3자의 소행임을 주장하고 있으나, 사법경찰리작성의 위 김정혜에 대한 1회 진술조서는 사고 다음날인 10.25. 09:40경 피고인으로부터 전화가 와서 전날 몇시경 피해자가 그녀에게 전화를 했는지 잘 기억해 보라고 부탁을 하기에 11:30을 전후한 5분 사이로 생각된다고 하였다는 취지이나, 사법경찰리작성의 그녀에 대한 2회 진술조서에 의하면 보통때는 아기가 9:30경에 잠을 자는데 그날은 10:30경에 아기가 잤고 그로부터 약 30분이 지난뒤에 피해자로부터 전화가 왔었으며 피해자가 전화한 시간을 11:00경에서 11:10경으로 정정하고 있는바 동 진술내용으로 보아 동 2회 진술조서가 더 신빙성이 있다고 보여지고, 이인의 경찰 및 검찰에서의 각 진술의 요지는 그는 피고인이 경영하는 위디스코클럽의 영업실장으로 근무하는데 평소 상업은행 향촌동지점의 예금통장은 그가, 도장은 피고인이 가지고 있어 사고전날 저녁에 피고인과 그 다음날 11:00경에 위 디스코클럽에서 만나 돈을 찾기로 약속하였는데 약속시간이 되어도 나오지 아니하기에 11:10경에 전화를 하였더니 피해자가 전화를 받아 피고인에게 바꾸어 주었는데 피고인이 곧 나가겠다하여 전화를 끊고 기다렸으나 나오지 아니하여 11:35경에 다시 전화를 하였고 그때도 역시 피해자가 받아 피고인에게 바꾸어 주어 피고인에게 무엇을 하고 있느냐고 독촉하였더니 지금 나가려고 옷을 입고 있다기에 다시 전화를 끊고 기다렸는데도 나오지 않아 11:55경 위 디스코클럽을 나와 대구 중구 향촌동 소재 상업은행 대구지점에 돈을 찾으러가는 도중 방범초소가 있는 킹양화점앞 네거리에서 위 디스코클럽 총무 김오환이 뒤따라와 도장을 주기에 위 은행에서 돈을 자기앞수표 액면 100,000원권 7매로 찾았다는 것이고, 그가 시간을 기억하고 있는 것은 2번 전화시와 위 디스코클럽을 나올 때 위 디스코클럽 남쪽 벽에 놓은 시계를 보았기 때문이라는 것인바(그의 당심법정에서의 진술도 이와 대동소이하다), 위 이인은 피고인의 종업원으로서 특수관계에 있는 자이고, 그날 11:10경에 첫번째 독촉전화를 한 것은 있을 수 있는 일이라 할지라도 11:35경에 두번째 독촉전화를 하였다는 것은 그가 일개 종업원의 신분에 있는 점에 비추어 쉽사리 이해가 되지 아니하며, 11:55경 더이상 기다리지 않고 위 디스코클럽을 나와 돈을 찾으러 상업은행 향촌동지점으로 갔다는 것도 피고인의 도장이 없으면 돈을 찾을 수가 없고, 피고인의 집과 위 디스코클럽까지의 거리등을 생각할 때 납득하기 어려운 처사이고, 그는 당심법정에서 평소 시계는 가지고 다니지 않지만 그날 디스코클럽의 벽시계를 보고 확인한 시간은 이 사건의 중요성에 비추어 평생 잊을 수 없을 것이라고 장담하면서도 변호인의 신문시에 위 디스코클럽을 나온 시간을 11:50경이라고 진술하였다가 재판장의 신문시에 경찰에서 진술한 11:50경이 맞을거라고 진술을 번복하여 피고인에게 조금이라도 더 유리하게 진술하려고 애쓰는 빛이 역력한 점등에 비추어 그의 경찰 및 검찰에서의 각 진술 전체(그중 특히 위 이인이 11:35경 피고인 및 피해자와 전화통화를 하였다는 부분)를 믿을 수 없을뿐만 아니라, 이인의 위 경찰 및 검찰에서의 각 진술이 의도적으로 거짓 진술한 것이 아니라고 가정하더라도 그는 5분단위로 잘라서 진술하고 있으므로 언제나 1, 2분 정도의 오차는 생길 여지가 있고, 원심의 검증조서에 의하면 피고인의 집에서 위 디스코클럽까지는 승용차로 시속 40킬로미터 내지 60킬로미터로 운전하여 10분이 걸린다는 것이니 보다 속도를 내고 요령을 써서 달린다면 더 시간을 단축할 수 있으며, 이인은 위 디스코클럽 부근에 도착하자마자 김오환이 바로 차로 와 도장을 받아 위 은행쪽으로 서둘러 갔다면, 결국 집을 나선 시각은 11:45분보다 수분 더 늦어질 여지가 있으므로 여기에다 원심의 검증조서에 의하여 인정되는 피고인의 집 주방, 거실, 욕실 및 거실의 구석창고의 상황 및 검사작성의 공소외 3에 대한 진술조서에 의하여 인정되는 범행후 각 방의 서랍장을 다 빼어놓기는 하였으나 일정한 간격으로 조금씩, 조금씩 빼고 그 내용물도 살짝 들쳐본 상태에 있었던 점을 합쳐 살펴보면, 시간상으로도 피고인이 피해자의 목을 졸라 교사케 하고 외부침입강도의 소행으로 위장하는 것이 반드시 불가능한 것은 아니라고 판단한 것이다.

However, the victim's right to attend the meeting is 1:30 to 5 minutes before and after the time of the defendant's statement at the police station's first time, but the defendant's right to attend the meeting at 1.7 times after the lapse of 13 days (after the defendant led to an offense at the police station). The defendant's right to attend the meeting at 1:0 to 110, and the defendant's right to attend the meeting at 10 minutes after his statement was accepted at 1:0, but the defendant's right to attend the meeting at 1:5 hours before and after his statement at 1:0, the defendant's right to attend the meeting at 1:0 to 11:0, but the defendant's right to attend the meeting at 1:5 hours after his statement at 1:0 to 20 days after his statement at 1:5 days after his statement at 1:5 days after his statement at 1:00 to 1:5 days after his statement at the time of the first time.

Thus, according to the defendant's statement at around 11:35 on the day of the case at around 11:5, it is recognized that he was in his house with his wife, the victim's wife, and according to the court below's decision and the prosecutor's office's statement, the time when the defendant arrived at the above DNA club is 1:5 (in accordance with the defendant's statement at his prosecutor's office, it can be recognized that he was found that he was found to have taken up his 7,80 meters from the time he went to the mixed bank when he became at around 11:55 and got about 7,80 meters from the time he went to the mixed bank when he got at around 11:55). Thus, the defendant's statement also is credibility if he was found to have taken into account the time when he arrived at the above DNA club and parked the car and opened the car to the Kim-O's office, and the time when he fell between 7,80 meters after his son and his son.)

In the end, it is a matter of whether the defendant can block the crime of injury in this case between 11:35 and 11:55 and the defendant's office at the defendant's house.

According to the record of the inspection of evidence by the court below, it can be recognized that the defendant operated a car from the first floor of the 4th floor in which he was living to the m clubs and takes more than 10 minutes of the car (the statement of the 4th floor to the 10th floor of the 4th floor in which he was living). It is unreasonable for the defendant to recognize that the defendant was driving a car from the 4th floor to the 1st floor of the 4th floor to the 10th floor of the 4th floor to the 10th floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor to the 10th floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor to the 10th floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor to the 1st floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor of the 4th floor to the 1st floor of the 1st floor of the 4th floor

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

According to the appraisal report of the expert procurement system, 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 killed with the victim at around 11:00. Thus, there is no evidence that the defendant intentionally testified with the victim before the victim's death presumption time is appraised, and it cannot be said that the court below's finding the victim's death time as 11:40 days after the victim's death is contrary to the above appraisal report.

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

The lower court recognized that the Defendant committed a crime with the intent of causing bodily injury to the victim, misunderstanding that the victim was dead, and disguised robbery due to external robbery, on the ground that the Defendant was able to bring his/her fingers into Australia and bring his/her fingers and bring him/her out, even though he/she had been able to do so even after having changed the expenses necessary for playing a boom with the victim.

However, according to the statement of the travel arrangement contract (in page 52 of the investigation record) and the statement at the prosecutor's office of Nonindicted 3 (in page 757 of the investigation record), it can be recognized that the victim's her dynamics, Nonindicted 2, 3, and Nonindicted 3's her dynamics, together with his her dynamics, proposed to pay the respective expenses for the tourist on October 27, 1985, and that the tourist bus fee was fully collected and paid 10.23.0.23. Thus, even if the full payment of the tourist bus fee, which is the largest expense for the tourism on the same day, is still required to request the her husband to pay the expenses in advance, and if the her her her son was unable to get off his her her her son because of the fact that the her her son did not have the son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son, etc.

(4) As to the Defendant’s active activities after the instant case, there is no doubt about the Defendant’s attendance at the said Dsc clubs, and then, from this personality, the Defendant lowered the rent for the building with the money that he had found at the bank, and thereafter, the building management office took charge of the building management office. After that, high school students are collected from the students of the Dong and Dong community liaison and Dong community membership fees, and the hours of the said club became the business hours of the said club at around 16:55, until the time it appears at the said club (No. 208 of the Investigation Records).

(5) As to the place of arrest used in committing the offence by the wire seized (No. 1)

While the Defendant was identified as a suspect at the police station and was investigating the suspect, the Defendant seized the electric cable (Evidence No. 1) at the place pointing out by the Defendant, by deeming him as a suspect after the issuance of the case, and examining him as a suspect, and considering the appraisal that the fixed area of the physician who appraised the body of October 25, 1985 was two so as to be the victim, and it is difficult to view him as being used in committing the crime. According to the above, the Defendant’s 10.29, 10.30, 10:0, 23:00, 100, 10:00, 10:00, 10:00,000, after being investigated by the Central Department Department, and 1:5:0,000, 1:00,000, 1:00, 1:00,000, 1:00,000, 1:5,000, etc., 1)., written evidence.

In light of the circumstances in which a police officer presented a flight cable used for the crime at the time of the investigation, while accompanying the police officer at the time of the investigation, the court below acknowledged that an electric cable set forth in subparagraph 1 of the evidence was used for the crime on the ground that there was no special motive for the defendant to conceal the electric cable set forth in subparagraph 1 not used for the crime in the sewage hole in advance and make a false statement to the police at the time of the investigation. However, it cannot be said that the act of manipulating evidence for the defendant being identified as the suspect for the crime while the defendant was suspected of being charged does not contravene the common sense of finding that the evidence is a final evidence that confirms that the defendant is a criminal should be proven even if the evidence is proved to be a criminal, and that the change of the defendant's office is somewhat insufficient, it cannot be readily concluded that the electric wire set forth in subparagraph 1 is used for the crime.

(6) As to the possibility that a person other than the defendant is an offender:

The court below determined that, in this case where it is difficult to find clear evidence that the defendant was not the offender who caused the victim's stroke, it could be recognized that the defendant had strokeed the victim's stroke by taking account of all the evidence of the first instance court. However, in determining the defendant as the offender, all reasonable doubts that the defendant is not the offender can be ruled out, and it does not require clear evidence as to whether the defendant is not the offender. Further, according to the statement at the court of the court of the first instance where the defendant was living with the defendant's wife, who was living with the defendant's wife, at the same time as the defendant's wife, at the 16:30 days to 17:00 days before the date of the case, it was impossible for the defendant to find out 3 and 4 of the male scokes and to find out the victim's strokes without response to the police (the court records No. 344), and at the time of the first instance court's site inspection of the defendant's 24th of the case.

3. The conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes it difficult for a judge to have a reasonable doubt, and if there is no such evidence, even if there is no doubt as to the defendant's guilt, the interests of the defendant cannot be determined. As seen above, the electric wires seized as mentioned above (No. 1) cannot be readily concluded as a means of committing a crime that causes the defendant to injure the victim, and the evidence cited by the court below shall not be admitted as evidence that the defendant injured the victim and caused the death. Meanwhile, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant is an offender of the crime of bodily injury in this case as seen above. On the other hand, it is reasonable to conclude that the defendant is an offender of the crime of bodily injury in this case, as seen above, the time required for committing the crime, time and time required for the crime, the time and time of the victim's death, the defendant's behavior on the day of the case, the defendant's motive on the day of the crime, and the third party, other than the defendant, might not have any reasonable doubt about the possibility of the defendant.

Therefore, without any need to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below which sentenced one punishment for habitual gambling in relation to the crime of injury and death resulting in death, shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)