With respect to Defendant 1, 224 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment, 181 days shall be included in Defendant 2, 177 days shall be included in Defendant 3, and 173 days shall be included in the above punishment against Defendant 4.

1. Joint injury by Defendant 1 to Nonindicted 6

Defendant 3 was in custody of KRW 20,00 won received by the above non-indicted 5 with adult male. Defendant 3 confirmed that the above 20,000 won was lost around May 11, 207, and it was doubtful that the victim non-indicted 6 (the victim non-indicted 6, 24 years old), who was living in a room near the morning, attempted to sing to sing and sing to sing to sing and to sing to sing down the above money. Defendant 1 asked the victim with Non-indicted 5, etc. on the ground that it was doubtful that the above money was stolen. Defendant 1 took place with Non-indicted 2, name singing to singing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to sing to the victim’s name and s body.

2. Defendants’ injury to Nonindicted 1

피고인 1, 3, 4 및 위 공소외 5는 위와 같이 공소외 6을 추궁하였지만 공소외 6이 횡설수설을 하고 2만 원도 찾지 못하자 공소외 6이 절취한 것이 아닐지도 모른다는 생각을 하던 중 피고인 3, 공소외 5가 2007. 5. 13. 처음 만난 노숙자인 피해자 공소외 1(여, 15세)과 수원역 대합실에 있는 GS 25시 편의점 등에서 놀던 중 공소외 5가 치마를 입고 있어 계속 춥다고 하여 피고인 3이 바지로 갈아입으라고 하자, 피해자가 치마가 예쁘다면서 안 입으려면 자기에게 빌려달라고 하여 피고인 3, 공소외 5가 피해자에게 ‘너랑 같이 다닐 것도 아닌데 빌려준 후 니가 째면 어떻게 하냐’고 하니 피해자가 그렇다면 2만 원을 주겠다고 하여, 피고인 3, 공소외 5가 편의점 밖에 있는 피고인 1, 4에게 ‘쟤가 치마를 빌려주면 2만 원 준데, 할까, 말까’라고 하면서 이야기를 하던 중 혹시 2만 원을 훔쳐간 얘가 피해자가 아닌가라는 이야기가 나왔다.

After that, at around 02:00 on May 14, 2007, Defendants 1, 3, 4, and 5 enter the 20,00 won of the victim's face at the Down Station, with Defendant 2 coming from the Diplomatic toilet in Suwon Station, and leaving the victim's face. They find a place where there is no way to see the victim's face, such as Nonindicted 2, 3, and Nonindicted 5, coming together with the victim's face in Suwon Station. At around 03:0 on the same day, Defendant 1 went away from the 5th face of the victim's face in order to prevent the victim from taking advantage of the victim's face. When the victim's face, Defendant 2, 3, and 4, in order to remove the victim's face, and come out of the victim's face, Defendant 3 continued to walk the victim's face, and Defendant 2, including the victim's face, and come out of the victim's face.

3. Joint conflict by Defendant 1

피고인 1은 공소외 13, 14와 함께 2007. 4. 23. 22:30경 수원시 권선구 세류동 527에 있는 신곡초등학교 후문 앞 노상에서 피해자 공소외 11(남, 16세), 공소외 15(남, 15세)가 걸어가는 것을 발견하였다. 공소외 13은 피해자 공소외 11과 어깨동무를 하고, 공소외 14, 피고인 1은 피해자 공소외 15와 어깨동무를 하여 위 초등학교 안으로 끌고 들어갔다. 공소외 13은 피해자들에게 ″돈 있으면 내놔″라고 말하였으나 피해자들이 돈이 없다고 말하자, 피해자 공소외 11의 다리를 걸어 넘어뜨리고 발로 목 부위를 수회 밟고 피해자 공소외 15의 얼굴을 손으로 수회 때리고 주먹으로 배를 때리고 어깨를 발로 찼다. 공소외 14는 피해자 공소외 15의 정강이 부위를 발로 10여 회 걷어차고, 피고인 1은 그 옆에서 사람들이 오는지 망을 봤다. 공소외 14는 ″가지고 있는 것 다 내놔″라고 말하여 피해자들에게 겁을 주었다. 이로써 피고인 1은 공소외 13, 14와 공동하여 피해자들을 공갈하여 이에 겁을 먹은 피해자 공소외 11로부터 그 자리에서 휴대폰 1대, MP3플레이어 1대, 안경 등 합계 20만 원 상당을 재물을 교부받았다.

4. Defendant 1’s special larceny;

가. 피고인 1은 공소외 14와 둘이서 공소외 14가 인터넷 채팅을 통하여 알게 된 공소외 16에게 부탁하여 2007. 5. 중순경 수원시 권선구 (이하 1 생략) 공소외 16의 집에서 하룻밤 묵게 되었다. 피고인 1은 공소외 14와 오전 시간불상경 잠을 자고 일어나 보니 공소외 16은 집에 없고 공소외 16의 아버지인 피해자 공소외 12만이 잠을 자는 것을 발견하였다. 이에 피고인 1은 출입문을 열어 놓고 밖에서 망을 보고, 공소외 14는 안방으로 들어가 옷걸이에 있는 피해자의 점퍼 주머니에서 현금 10만 원, 주민등록증, 삼성신용카드, 농협직불카드, 장애인복지카드 각 1매가 들어있는 시가 15만 원 상당의 지갑을 가지고 나왔다. 이로써 피고인 1은 공소외 14와 합동하여 피해자 소유의 재물 합계 25만 원 상당을 절취하였다.

B. At around 04:00 on November 23, 2007, Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 4, at the “○○○○○○○” restaurant operated by Nonindicted 17, the victim Nonindicted 17 located in the sphere of Suwon-si (hereinafter referred to as “2 omitted), Nonindicted 4 went beyond the fenced by using a tree victim under his wall, and Defendant 1 was frighted under the bottom of Nonindicted 4’s wall so that Nonindicted 4 may go beyond the fence, and was going up with a chair. Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 entered the restaurant. Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 entered the restaurant, and Defendant 1 took 40,00 won in cash at the Kitter’s credit cooperative, and Nonindicted 4 took one credit card, respectively. Accordingly, Defendant 1 and Nonindicted 4 stolen the victim’s body card, and agricultural credit card together with Nonindicted 4.

5. Defendant 2’s special larceny and attempted special larceny.

Defendant 2 jointly with Defendant 2 (1989), Nonindicted 18, and 19. Around December 27, 2007, around 14:00, Defendant 2 reported the network outside the above Defendant 2 (1989 students), and Defendant 2 entered the entrance to the entrance and exit of Nonindicted 18, 19, opening the entrance and exit of Nonindicted 110,00 won in the market price of Nonindicted 19, and 10,000 won in cash, and 10,000 won in other persons with a total of 10,000 won, and 18,000,000 won, and 2,000,000 won and 18,000 won, and 14,000,00 won and 18,00 won and 2,00 won, and 14,000,00 won and 18,00 won, and 14,000,00 won and 14,0.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each testimony of Nonindicted 4, 6, 3, 9, 22, 7, and 8

1. On-site verification CDs, SBS “I wish to know it,” and video recording CDs “exploiting and learning”

Each Protocol of Inspection

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants and Nonindicted 5

1. Each prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 2, 4, 23, and 9

1. On-site inspection records prepared by judicial police officers and public prosecutors;

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 24 and 25

1. Results of the identification of the case of a person who has suffered from a change in the family register;

1. Ratifications;

1. Identity and distribution of the identity of a deceased person (pathos' clothes and oil photographs);

1. Reporting on collection of criminal intelligence;

1. Investigation report (report accompanied by search data, such as relevant news, etc., on the accidents of gymnas and girls living in orchard);

1. Investigation report (to attach a copy of the Seoul High Court Examination Report to Nonindicted 9 and 3);

1. Investigation report (Attachment to Nonindicted 2 and 3’s copy of the decision)

1. An investigation report (a report on attachment on the bottom of the paper World Cup entered by Non-Indicted 5's mergs of the suspect);

1. Investigation report (Attachment of Nonindicted 5’s letter to the suspect);

【Joint Bribery by Defendant 1, Special Larceny】

1. Defendant 1, Co-Defendant 14, and Defendant 4’s each legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant 1 and Co-Defendant 4

1. The police suspect interrogation protocol against Nonindicted 13

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 11, 15, 12, and 17

[Defendant 2’s Special thief and Special thief]

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant 2 (the 89 student), non-indicted 18, 19, 26, 27, 28, and 29

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 30

1. Each statement of Nonindicted 20, 31, 32, and 33

1. Copy of Nonindicted 34’s statement

1. Each protocol and list of police officers;

1. Photographs of each seized article;

1. On-site photographs of damaged places;

1. Each purchase account book;

A. Defendant 1: Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint injury, the choice of imprisonment), Article 259(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by death), Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 350(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint threat, the choice of imprisonment), Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny)

B. Defendant 2: Articles 259(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 342, 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 342, 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted charge of special larceny)

(c) Defendant 3: Articles 259(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act.

(d) Defendant 4: Articles 259(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act.

1. Mitigation of juvenile offenses;

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Articles 2 and 60(2) of the Juvenile Act, and Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant 1 and 2: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Crimes of Death and Injury, etc. with Gross Mutandis Punishment)

1. Irregular type (Defendant 1 is not a juvenile who is under the revised Juvenile Act beyond 19 years old at the time of committing the instant crime with the date of birth omitted, but is not a juvenile subject to the revised Juvenile Act beyond 19 years old at the time this judgment was sentenced);

Defendant 2, 3, and 4: Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

수사기관은 현재의 유전자감정 등 발전된 과학수사 방법과 기술에 기초하여 피해자가 사망한 채 발견된 2007. 5. 14. 새벽에 그 현장 주위에 있을 머리카락 하나의 물적 증거라도 샅샅이 찾아내어 객관적 진실을 밝혀내었어야 하였지만, 그나마 발견한 물적 증거에 대한 조사도 제대로 하지 아니하고, 당초 자신의 범행을 자백한 공소외 2와 공소외 3이 수사와 재판과정에서 진술하는 관여자인 ‘꼬맹이들’에 대한 수사마저 제대로 하지 아니하였다. 다른 많은 사건에서도 그러하지만, 그리고 우리나라의 수사현실을 감안한다고 하여도 심히 유감스러운 일이 아닐 수 없다.

Ultimately, the evidence regarding the crime of death resulting from bodily injury was inevitable to reveal the facts only by the evidence that began after six months or more, and there was no choice but to complete an investigation into the evidence of witnesses, etc. for nine months or more in the instant case. However, it is not easy to believe that the evidence of the statement is the evidence of the first instance in addition to the false statement in addition to the limit of the human perception ability and memory ability. In addition, whether the evidence of the statement is merely a full-time statement other than Nonindicted 3’s testimony and it is merely a full-time statement (a full-time statement) and thus, it is an emphasis on whether the evidence law is “credit circumstantial guarantee (a guarantee that the statement was made in a particularly reliable state).” On the contrary, most of the participants, including the Defendants, including the Defendants, are the know-how or juveniles, who are not able to doubt any reasonable accident or behavior.

However, according to the evidence of the judgment, there is no doubt about the fact that Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 made a statement to the effect that they had been involved in the crime of the above bodily injury until it is found guilty in whole or in part. It is reasonable to view that there was a juvenile living together with others in light of the motive of the crime by Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3. Furthermore, it is reasonable to view that Nonindicted 2 made a false confession even though he did not commit the crime in this court, although he did not do so, he made a false confession. However, when the conviction of the Defendant became final and conclusive on December 22, 2007 and it was in the state of not having any other interest, on January 10, 2008, he stated in detail that the Defendant et al. jointly committed the crime of the above bodily injury, and that there was a relatively consistent statement about the facts related to the Defendant et al. and the fact that Nonindicted 4 made a statement in their singing after the death of Nonindicted 3 and his singing after the death of Nonindicted 1, etc., the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize the evidence by each of the Defendants.

In light of the above five persons’ attitude and the contents of the statement, it is difficult to recognize that the prosecutor’s response to the investigation or investigation and the perception of society above, all of the five persons, including Nonindicted 5, led to the confession. The risk of conviction by confession and the prosecution’s waiting for several hours, and the procedural illegality that the video recording commenced only after the confession was made. Considering the fact that the Defendants were unable to obtain sufficient assistance from their parents, etc. and to achieve psychological stability, there is no reasonable ground to believe the above five persons’ statement. In light of the above five persons’ attitude and the contents of the statement, it is difficult to find that the prosecutor’s response to the investigation or investigation and the fact that there is sufficient experience and ability to recognize the society above, and it is difficult to recognize that the false statement was made without permission by the unanimous consent of the prosecutor alone, and it is difficult to conclude that there is confusion with the crime of joint injury to Nonindicted 6 or the confession thereof, or that there is any false confession, as long as there is no disagreement between the above five persons.

In this context, the fact that the Defendant, etc. are free to make statements during the investigation period is more so in light of Nonindicted 7 and 8, etc. of the witness.

If so, the above evidence is found to have been made under particularly reliable circumstances, and there is no other reasonable doubt as to the facts charged against the death or injury in the judgment of the Defendants, and comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence in the judgment, the above evidence is proved and recognized.

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

【Crime Disturbing Table】

Judge Credit Card (Presiding Judge)

In case of being unable to sign and seal by a judge-at-law training business trip;