A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

One motor vehicle seized for the franchise (No. 5), one hack (No. 9), one hack (No. 10), two knife (No. 11), one knife (No. 14), one smart knife (No. 22), one knife vehicle (No. 23) and one hacke electric knife (No. 23) shall be confiscated, respectively.

The prosecutor's appeal concerning the part not guilty among the judgment below is dismissed.

A. Defendant

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to murdering against victim D)

The defendant was in opposition to the sexual assault City/Do of the victim D, and was killed as a result, and there was no intention to murder against the defendant.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The imprisonment with prison labor of the court below is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to murdering against Victim C)

Comprehensively taking account of all the appraisal results and indirect evidence by legal scholars of the victim C, it is recognized that the Defendant led to the bodily death of the victim by returning the victim’s face listed above, such as the victim, to the direction of bed against the victim, and pressure the victim’s face. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, etc.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The imprisonment with prison labor of the court below is too uncomfortable and unfair.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

1) The Defendant completed the marriage report on June 11, 2013 with the victim and gave birth to E during the period of BR date. On or around June 2016, the Defendant and the victim, a three-year marriage, entered a separate place, and the victim filed a lawsuit of divorce, etc. against the Defendant at the Jeju District Court on or around November 2, 2016, and the Defendant filed a counterclaim claiming a divorce, etc. against the victim on March 9, 2017. In the lawsuit above, the Defendant and the victim were divorced from the victim on or around May 26, 2017, and the victim paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant as division of property, and the victim designated the Defendant as the person with parental authority and the rearer on or around the date of the marriage. The Defendant and the victim reported the divorce from around 10:00 to 18:00 E, which were the first day of the Jeju District Court on July 1, 2017.

2) However, from July 2017 to October 30, 2018, the victim filed an application with the Jeju District Court for performance order against the Defendant as to non-performance of visitation rights. The Defendant did not attend the Jeju District Court’s examination date on January 29, 2019 and February 26, 2019 on two occasions, and was subject to the imposition of an administrative fine of KRW 500,000 in each of the above courts. On May 9, 2019, the victim attended the interview examination date of the family investigator’s family affairs conducted at the Jeju District Court on May 25, 2019 and attended the first interview with the victim’s first interview with the victim on May 25, 2019, and the second interview with the victim on June 8, 2019, the Defendant and the victim were present at the Jeju District Court around June 10, 2019 and then continued the second interview with the victim on June 4, 2019.

3) On the other hand, around May 4, 2019, the Defendant agreed to take a long contact with the University-Friendly W, and to take part in Jeju Island around May 23, 2019, and to take part in Jeju Island at around that time. The Defendant and W agreed to take part in the “V” Liber, which is located in Seopo City U, Seopo City, from May 23, 2019 to May 2019 through the Kakakao Stockholm, and to take part in Jeju Island at the same time.

4) On May 16, 2019, in order to return from Jeju-do and Jeju-do pursuant to the aforementioned schedule, the Defendant promised the shipment of the franchiseer vehicle by promising the K-do vessel that operates from the M website to Jeju-do on May 18, 2019 on May 18, 2019, and the K-do vessel that operates in Jeju-do on May 27, 2019. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20690, May 27, 2019>

5) On May 17, 2019, the Defendant: around 13:05, at around 15, 2019, sent the 15th day to the 2nd day of May 25 (the scheduled date of the first interview with the victim E) to May 27, 2019, up to 1:2nd day of May 27, 2019, the Defendant promised and settled the Nshion, which is a sole unmanned pent (hereinafter referred to as “instant pent”) in Jeju, with the content that two adults and one sons will be accommodated at the 5th day of May 17, 2019 (the date of the scheduled date of the victim’s first interview with the victim’s EM 1:5th day of May 17, 2019, the Defendant asked the Defendant’s family members to use the 6th day of the above 5th day off 10th day of the above 7th day of the call with the above 6th day (the 6th day off 15th day of May 17th day).

7) From May 23, 2019 to May 25, 2019, the Defendant was able to go together with his family members E in V Liet from May 25, 2019. The Defendant, during the pertinent opening period, visited W at the close home at around 5:26:26 to 23:35, while visiting W at the close home at around 2019, he was found to have been able to bring documents necessary for the victim’s day when visiting W at the close home.

8) The Defendant: (a) went to Sinpo City X, the place of promise with the victim, around May 25, 2019, 11:26, after the Defendant: (b) went to Sinposi X, the place of promise with the victim; (c) around 10:28, the victim, who was waiting for the first arrival at Sinpo City, sent Y up to 15:10,00 with the Defendant, Y by approximately 2 years:00,000, and 16:25. After that, the Defendant and the victim moved to AAma for their own car, and moved to Sinpo City at around 16:12 to 16:25,00,000: (d) around 16:12:12 to 16:25,00,000,0000 from the Defendant’s car.

19) On May 25, 2019: around 17:02, the Defendant and the victim arrived at the instant pent, and the victim took up the Defendant’s cell phone around 19:14, and took up his father and video conversations around 20:02. On May 25, 2019, the victim sent the victim the Kakao Stockholm message “after the end of the 21:5 p.m. (the end of the 1:0 p.m.) and 29 p.m. (the end of the 1:0 p.m.) no longer than 1:5 p.m., 29 p.m. (the end of the 1:0 p.m. and 29 p.m., the Defendant did not request an extension of 1:0 p.m. 1:5 p.m., 200 p.m. (the end of the 1:0 p.m.) and no more than 29:0 p.m. 15 p.m.

1) On May 27, 2019, 12:34 on May 27, 2019, the Defendant: at around 13:10 BI site, sent to the operator a string at around 13:11, a written message stating that the Defendant would bring the victim with sexual assault attempted and violent violence at around 14:48, and that the Defendant would be bad human being? At around 15:35, the Defendant visited a member of the AS et al. at around 15:35, and then visited the Defendant at around 2:1:5, the Defendant would have been subject to treatment on his/her apartment on May 25, 2019, and then called the Defendant’s 2:1:5,000,000,000,000,000 won, and then called the Defendant’s 7:5,000,0000,000,000,000 won.

13) From May 29, 2019 to May 23: 27, 2019 to May 30, 2019, the Defendant sent the message to 2: 1: 5, to 20:07, using 2 mobile phone units owned by the Defendant, “Unsatisfy,” but it is difficult to see why the Defendant is the victim who is a victim, or that he would be placed at a greater level. In addition, it seems that no more than 5:0 messages would have been sent. The Defendant sent the message to 3:0 on May 29, 201, 200: 1:3:00 on May 23, 2019, and 1:5:3:00 on May 29, 2019, the Defendant sent the message to 4:5:0 on May 19, 201.

14) On May 30, 2019, at the Jeju East Police Station around 09:00, the Defendant was urged to have a call for a final witness related to the missing case as a witness, who was asked to attend as a final witness at the Jeju East Police Station. The Defendant was able to have sexual assaulted. The Defendant was able to see why he was wrong, and why she was so doing, how much she was fluored and fluored. There was no sexual intercourse. The Defendant did not have sexual intercourse at the instant pention around 20:00 on the first anniversary of the date when she was fluored. If the victim was locked, she was unable to be punished. The Defendant was present at the inside of the date when she was fluored. The Defendant started Kimpo on around 04:43 on May 31, 2019 to arrive at the police station without being arrested and arrived at around 07:20 on the day before he was arrested.

15) The instant pention is a 1st floor building that is provided to the pentions with only about 12 houses around them. However, at the end of a dead-end road, there was no CCTV in the instant pention itself except for access roads in the vicinity. The instant pention was made up of three rooms, multiple learning rooms, bathing rooms, kitchen rooms, kitchen rooms, and toilets, and the instant pention was found as a result of on-site identification of the instant pention, which led to the occurrence of a diversity in the instant pention and bath room, kitchen, kitchen, kitchen, entrance, cell, ceiling of the toilet, electric light, front light, floor, and electrical preparation, and based on this, “the result of blood trace type analysis was found,” and the result of this analysis was continuously presumed to have been the victim’s knife with a deadly weapon, such as the victim’s knife, bath, kitchen, and the victim’s knife.

16) On June 1, 2019, at least 10:32, the Defendant was suspected of murder on the victim at the Cheongju apartment parking lot. The police discovered the Defendant’s lab electric saws, water boxes, strings, red fences, red fluorings, etc. from the Defendant’s labs in the underground parking lot, and requested genetic appraisal along with the seized articles found in the instant pent, Kimpo apartment, etc. As a result, the Defendant’s 1 to 6 appraisal of the instant pentle was discovered at the 1 to 3rd 2nd 4th mars, the Defendant’s 1 to 6th mar-type mars and 1 to 5th mar-type margs, the 1 to 5th mar-type margs and 5th marg mar-type margs of the Defendant’s cell, and the 1 to mar-type 1 to m.

[Attachment 1] As a result of CCTV analysis, the defendant requested to take photographs on the parts of the body, such as the ship, side gate, arms, bridge, right bridge, buckbucks, and pelvis in the process of "the defendant attempted to commit sexual assault with a knife and with a knife and with a knife at the police." In addition, the above knife requests the appraisal as to whether the above knife can be seen as a defensive trace. All knife professor of the Law School of CTR University, School, School, School of the CTR University, which was requested to conduct the said appraisal, is on the possible parts formed by self-injury, and all knife in the process of avoiding modified damage, i.e., damage that occurred in the process of avoiding harmful act, or that only the defendant was found to be able to be formed through a minor act."

The Defendant, from the investigative agency to the day of the instant case, tried to commit sexual assault from the victim to the time of the instant case, and stated that knife killed the victim in a knife by accident during the process of resisting the knife. The victim’s family members become aware of the fact that the victim meets the Defendant for visitation right, and the victim’s personal problem arises. If the victim’s family members are aware of the fact that the victim is living together with the Defendant, it would have no choice but to be doubtful, and the Defendant appears to have a significant difference from the physical condition at the risk of danger in the space where he is his children E, and there seems to be somewhat insufficient motive to kill the victim at 183 cm and body, it is difficult to find that the Defendant was not aware of the following circumstances, and thus, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was responsible for murder at the time of the instant crime, based on the evidence duly adopted by the lower court.

1) After the victim divorced from the victim, the Defendant did not cooperate with the victim even though the victim continuously demanded the visitation right with E. In the end, the court against the victim’s non-performance of the obligation to allow the visitation right.

At the time of filing an application for performance order, the Defendant presumed to have wanted to establish a family relationship with E (the Defendant, around 18:43 on May 18, 2019, expressed the name of E in the CS along with the Jeju-do visit from Jeju-do, and “E” refers to the victim’s three villages. This fact shows the Defendant’s plan and wind as above). As above, the Defendant had to be forced to allow visitation negotiations in the future, and the Defendant seems to have suffered a considerable heart pain on the establishment of the relationship with E, victims, and H.

2) Under the foregoing circumstances, the Defendant, without mentioning the specific content, set up a plan to come into Jeju-do according to the promise with W, and agreed to interview with H for the visitation, and sent the victim a text message unilaterally changing the place of visitation from Cheongju to Cheongju to Cheongju. The Defendant expressed that the Defendant would be able to be accommodated with her husband in the currency with the instant pen operator. However, the Defendant appears to have been divorced with the victim, and there was no particular exchange thereafter, and the Defendant had expressed a good appraisal about the Defendant’s delivery of the interview with the victim. The scheduled visitation negotiation was a day on May 25, 2019, and the Defendant, as the Defendant, did not appear to have been able to have agreed to attend the meeting with the victim on May 18, 2019, and it was difficult for the Defendant to have agreed to have the interview with the victim for more time than time than time after the victim’s arrival.

3) Many bloodstains were found within the broad range until the records of the instant pentthy, living room, suspender, straw, and front door door. The bloodstains the victim’s genes from the bloodstains. As a result of the bloodstain analysis, the Defendant was found to have continuously displayed a deadly weapon, such as a knife knife, knife, etc., on the part of the victim, and the victim was presumed to have been defended. In full view of the location and scope of the bloodstain as seen above, and the result of the bloodstain analysis, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant display the knife or knife the victim on several occasions. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s assertion that the above knife has reached the victim’s knife by intentionally setting up against the victim’s sexual assault at the knife room, and that the above knife type is sufficiently supporting the victim’s murder.

4) At 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 3nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3rd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 3nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 2nd 3nd 2nd 2nd 3nd 3nd 3rd 200 st st 2nd 2nd 201.

5) In the situation where the Defendant saw a knife to cut knife to E at the kitchen at the time, the Defendant mentioned the possibility of pregnancy by the victim, and stated that the victim was knife by the knife and knife to the knife (the Defendant was detained in the instant case, and the Defendant also stated to the same purport to H or his family members, who knife the knife). However, at the time, the Defendant applied for a performance order against the Defendant, who did not cooperate with the interview right, and applied for a performance order against the Defendant, and met E by the second time until about two years, but in light of the developments and circumstances during which the interview right was conducted, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant attempted to commit sexual assault by threatening the Defendant at the same time, and it is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement to the investigative agency as to whether the victim was actually sexual assaulted by the victim (the Defendant is the Defendant).

In the process of attempting sexual assault, the victim stated that knife has reached knife. In the process of the defendant examination of the court below, the victim stated that knife has reached a knife during the defendant's sexual intercourse. In addition, in the above circumstances, if the defendant brought about a contingent crime, it is generally anticipated that the defendant should report the victim's body to the police or receive knife and treatment. Rather, the defendant was placed in a life that is not significantly different from the peace, such as cutting, damaging, scambling, returning the body of the victim and returning it to Tart. This is very exceptional even if the defendant's assertion was considered to prevent E from becoming aware of such a situation.

6) After committing the crime, the Defendant sent the victim’s text message to the effect that he/she would file a complaint against sexual assault and violence, and sent the victim’s text message to the effect that he/she would have been unfolded by using the victim’s cell phone as the victim sent. Furthermore, the Defendant sent the victim’s text message to H. Furthermore, it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was faced with the situation where he/she actually suffered sexual assault at the time, even if he/she searched the victim’s sexual assault victim, sexual assault, sexual assault lawsuit, and indecent act by compulsion, etc. with his/her cell phone, in light of the fact that H was in contact with the victim by the end that he/she did not contact with the victim and arranged his/her marital life, it was highly likely that he/she would have falsely sent the above text message during his/her vindication.

3. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principle

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On November 17, 2017, the Defendant reported a marriage with H, the father of the Victim C (AV) and resided in the Cheongju apartment complex from June 2018. From around June 2018, H had been living in the Cheongju apartment complex, even though a pregnant fetus between H and H was born twice during the marriage period, H did not want the Defendant, but neglected E, which is the child between the Defendant and the Jeonnam, and only the victim was the true family member, with a strong hostile and decentralization with H, and had the mind to kill the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendant, while raising the victim’s Cheongju apartment, divided the victim’s face into beer, etc. by using the cresh of the victim’s face. However, the Defendant: (a) divided the victim’s face into locking with the victim and formulated a plan to avoid his/her criminal liability as if the victim died; and (b) changed the victim into Cheongju apartment on February 28, 2019; (c) from around 00 to 22:00 on March 21, 2019 to 0: (d) made the victim’s body unfolding the victim’s face with the victim’s face from 0 on November 1, 2018 to 20 on the part of the victim’s body; and (d) made the victim’s 20 mar from around 20 to 20:0 on the part of the victim’s bar, and made the victim’s mark’s sturd with the victim’s body.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim.However, the judgment of the court below.

The court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, indirect evidence in this case without direct evidence in light of the following circumstances: (a) there is insufficient evidence to find that the Defendant had a vehicle containing exempted ingredients de facto diving; (b) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant died due to other causes; (c) it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant died due to the same method as the facts charged; and (d) it is unclear whether the Defendant was broken at the time of presumption of the victim’s death; and (b) as long as the time of presumption of the victim’s death cannot be deemed correct, even if the Defendant was broken at the time of presumption of the victim’s death, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant murdered the victim solely because of such circumstances cannot be said to have been sufficiently proven that the Defendant died as the facts charged; and (b) there is insufficient motive to kill the victim.

C. The judgment of this Court

1) Relevant legal principles

The recognition of facts constituting a crime in a criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value that leads a judge to have no reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that he/she would lead to such conviction, even if there exist circumstances, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable fear of guilt, the determination ought to be made as to the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 6, 2012). Meanwhile, even in a case where statutory punishment, such as murder, is grave, there may be evidence without direct evidence to the extent that it does not permit a reasonable doubt, but even in that case, the recognition of indirect facts constituting the premise of major facts ought to be proven to be sufficient to support the principle of mutual conflict and logical rules and scientific rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do10895, Dec. 9, 2010).

2) The following facts are revealed according to the objective facts established by the court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below.

(1) 피고인은 2013. 6. 11. D과 혼인신고를 마치고 그 사이에서 E을 출산하였는데, 그 후 2017. 5. 26. 제주지방법원에서 이혼조정이 성립되어 2017. 6. 2. 이혼 신고를 마친 후 제주도에서 E을 양육하면서 생활하였다. 한편, H는 2010. 8. 16, 구급 경력채용 전형으로 충북지역 소방공무원으로 임용되어 청주에서 근무하여 왔는데, 2014. 6. 9. AX과 혼인신고를 마치고 그 사이에서 AV일자경 피해자 C을 낳았으나 AX이 2015. 1. 20. 사망한 후 2016. 6.경부터 제주도에 있는 어머니에게 피해자의 양육을 맡긴 채 피해자와 떨어져 살았다. 그러던 중 피고인과 H는 2017. 1.경 교제를 시작하여 2017. 11. 17. 혼인신고를 마쳤고, 2018. 6. 1.경 청주 아파트를 H 명의로 매수(H는 위 아파트를 289,200,00원에 매수하면서 CU주식회사에서 대출을 받고 채권최고액 254,400,000원의 근저당권을 설정하여 주었다)한 이후 전 배우자들과의 사이에서 출생한 자녀들을 각자의 부모에게 양육을 맡긴 채 위 아파트에서 혼인생활을 하여 왔다(H는 2018. 12. 1.부터 2020. 11. 30.까지 피고인의 자 E에 대한 육아휴직 중이었다). (2) 피고인과 H가 함께 거주하였던 청주 아파트는 아래 도면과 같이 방 3개, 거실 1개, 주방 1개, 화장실 2개로 구성되어 있었는데, 현관문을 열고 들어가면 정면에 2 층 침대가 있는 방(아래 도면 "방1")이 있고 그 옆에 2개의 퀸 사이즈 침대를 나란히 붙여놓은 중간 방(아래 도면 "방2")이 있었으며, 복도를 사이에 두고 2개의 방 건너편에 욕조가 딸린 화장실이 있었고, 복도를 따라 들어가면 오른쪽에는 소파와 텔레비전이 있는 거실이, 왼쪽에는 식탁이 있는 주방이 있었다. 주방과 거실을 지나면 안쪽에 샤워실과 화장실(아래 도면 "화장실2")이 딸린 안방이 있었는데, 안방에는 피고인과 H가 사용하는 책상과 데스크톱 컴퓨터 2대가 설치되어 있었다.

(3) The Defendant and H planned to live their respective children from Jeju-do to Cheongju, and paid the victim and E entrance fees to the child care center located in Cheongju on January 9, 2019. Accordingly, the Defendant and H planned to live together with their respective children.

H first of February 28, 2019, the victim was brought to the Cheongju apartment. At around 10:00 on March 1, 2019, the defendant and H participated in the call-up of the above childcare center, and around 12:55 at the 'BE restaurant', and they have returned to the house after the eating was completed. The victim was made a meal after he was made to the middle of the school.

In the middle room (which is referred to as the "side 2" of the above apartment drawing) and thereafter, on March 2, 2019, H set out the second floor bed from the boundary of the middle entrance door to the above victim, the defendant was suffering from the reduction of the entrance, and the defendant was not diving like the victim, and was set off from the second floor bed from the side (which is referred to as the "side 1" of the above apartment drawing).

(4) On March 2, 2019, at around 10:00 of the day following the date, the victim was discovered by H in a state where he was faced with the face above H, such as H (on the spot image and photographs, and the body examination report, which was conducted by the National Science Investigation and Investigation Institute based on the on-site video and the body examination report, that the victim was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a state where her head was left at the right upper right upper right upper right upper right upper right upper part of her head, and that H was in a cell where she was in a state where she was in a state where she was in a place where she was in a place where she was in a place where she was in a way and reported 119, and the victim was in a state where she was in a place where she was found in the body of 119:5.

(6) 국립과학수사연구원의 약독물 검사 결과 피해자의 혈액과 위(胃) 내용물에서 치료농도 범위 내의 클로르페니라민(chlorpheniramine)2)이 검출되는 이외에 특기할 약물이나 독물이 검출되지 않았고, 국립과학수사연구원의 부검 결과 특기할 만한 질병이나 손상이 발견되지는 않았으나 피해자의 왼눈꺼풀 결막, 왼눈 부위, 입 부위 왼쪽, 좌우 광대 부위, 좌우 볼 부위, 목 부위, 가슴 부위 등에서 다수의 점출혈이 발견되고(그 외에 좌우 넓적다리 앞 부위에서도 여러 개의 점출혈이 발견되었다), 왼 어깨뼈 윗부분에서 국소적인 표피박탈(크기 약 3.5m×0.7m)이 발견되었다. 부검을 담당한 법의관 BM은 위와 같은 결과를 종합하여 피해자의 사인은 질식으로 추정된다는 의견을 밝혔다. (7) 한편, 2019. 3. 1. 22:00경부터 2019. 3. 2. 10:00경까지 청주 아파트 승강기 CCTV상으로 피고인과 H, 피해자가 집 밖으로 나오는 장면은 확인되지 않았다. 다만 청주 아파트 안방에 있던 데스크톱 컴퓨터와 피고인의 휴대전화에 대한 디지털증거 분석 결과, 피고인이 ① 2019. 3. 2. 00:05경 안방에 있는 데스크톱 컴퓨터를 이용하여 BZ 사이트의 '아파트' 카페에 들어가 게시 글에 댓글을 작성한 사실, ② 2019. 3. 2. 04:48경 자신의 휴대전화에서 피해자의 친모 AX의 동생 및 친구 연락처를 확인 변경하고, 04:52경 2019. 2. 28.자 H와의 통화녹음파일 및 2019. 2. 27.자 BG의원과의 통화녹음파일을 재생한 사실, ③ 피고인이 2019. 3. 2. 07:09경 BI 사이트에서 당일 12:15 출발 예정인 제주행 CV 항공권을 예약·결제한 사실이 확인되었다.

3) Specific determination

(1) Basic premise for determination

The victim was found to have died in the Cheongju apartment that had been the Defendant and H only. In this case, there was no direct evidence to identify the person who provided the cause of the death of the victim. However, from March 1, 2019 to March 10, 2019, the CCTV on the Cheongju apartment elevator, which was discovered by the victim from March 1, 2019 to March 10, 2019, the Defendant and H and the victim were not identified, and the Defendant and H made a statement with the assent that the third party did not have entered the Cheongju apartment at the time, so it is difficult to consider the possibility that the third party murdered the victim.

The common opinion of the legal scholars who analyzed the cause of death of the victim appears to be the victim's consciousness and in particular, it is presumed that the chest, etc. was pressured in the process. Based on the author's opinion of this law, the possibility that the cause of death of the victim was divided into the bridge, etc. of H, i.e., the possibility of the victim's death, i., the so-called "debrising" 3) and the possibility that the defendant or H's intentional act could have been debrised due to the intentional act. The prosecutor raised a prosecution against the part of the case where the defendant intentionally killed the victim by taking full account of the opinion of the legal scholars that the possibility of sporasity is low, and indirect facts such as the defendant's doubtful act shown before and after the instant case. However, in the instant case at issue, whether the crime of murder can be recognized only with indirect evidence without direct evidence should be sufficiently proven to be sufficiently strong in view of the criminal motive, selection of means of crime, the process leading to the crime, and the defendant's attitude before and after the crime.

(2) As to the cause of the victim’s death, legal scholars who analyze the cause of the victim’s death present the following opinions:

① Considering the fact that a number of blood transfusions have been confirmed in the part of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation in charge of the victim’s autopsy, the possibility of mechanical corrosion (tension 4), face, timber, and chest upper part, etc. is considered first. In light of the type of the distribution of the blood transfusions, the likelihood of the victim’s sporadation or pressure spokeing is considered in light of the shape of the distribution of the blood transfusions. The possibility of death is extremely rare because the male 4 years old is pressured by the adult who was the same as that of the body of the body of the water, and there was no such case found by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation.

② Comprehensively taking into account the following factors: (a) a school room of the CW University’s law and a professor BL victim’s school room of the medical research institute; (b) a snow on both sides of the left eye and coke; (c) a serious frighting blood that is observed centered on the body side of the body, such as the chest side of both chests; (d) three sloping lines of the sacker’s bloodline remaining on the victim’s face; and (e) a two sacker’s sackline that can be confirmed over the victim’s face; and (e) a wide range of body parts, including face and body length, the victim’s external nusing movement led to death through a qualitative process; (e) a person can be presumed to have been aware of the same sexual shot on the date of death or the condition, age, etc. of the victim; and (e) there is no possibility that the victim could actively move out the same sexual shot on the victim’s face at the time of death or on the victim’s age.

③ The CX victim of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation appears to have been pressed at the same time with the rear part of his head and the chest part. In the event an adult male completely covered the victim as H, the death by negligence is possible. However, in order to discuss the death by negligence, it is necessary for the family in which H covers the victim to the extent that he was unable to move in due to a malutical disorder, a mondal disease, liver, or breaculing, and so on. The National Institute of Scientific Investigation did not discover the same case in the instant case.

④ In light of the fact that a large number of blood transfusions are discovered from the upper part of the upper part of the entrance, the upper part of the upper part, the upper part, the upper part, the upper part, the upper part, and the upper part of the chest, and the fact that a large number of blood transfusions are not discovered, the victim is determined to have died by dividing the upper part of the victim’s body into the upper part of the victim’s body under the situation where the victim was faced with the lower part of the lower part, and by taking account of the victim’s age, height, height, condition, etc., the possibility of the victim’s physical pressure caused by his/her body is rare.

(B) Comprehensively taking account of the above legal scholars’ opinions, while the possibility of the victim’s death by pressure by external force on his head and chest was high, while the victim’s body was divided into the body of H with the same person in light of the victim’s age, etc. is very low. The legal scholars’ opinions on the cause of the victim’s death are based on various opinions remaining in the body of the victim, and it is difficult to deny that the victim’s death was strongly supported by the possibility of the victim’s death by another person’s intentional act. However, it is difficult for the Defendant to investigate into an investigative agency.

Unless other circumstances are supported by the following circumstances, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant murdered the victim solely on the basis of the aforementioned appraisal results or the legal scholars’ opinions, unless other circumstances are supported by the same.

① Recognizing that BM’s opinion alone does not distinguish between the victim’s death and the victim’s death, the autopsy is based on the content confirmed by autopsy, and the victim’s assertion is necessary to supplement it through investigation. As such, the autopsy or legal scholars’ opinion provides reasonable basis for presumption of death or death as a result of medical judgment based on several private persons appearing in the body. However, it is difficult to determine ex post facto determination (the opinion of legal scholars, not by autopsy, based on the result of autopsy and the investigation records) and that it would be difficult to find additional determination through investigation if there is no unique private person, such as death caused by non-permanent death, and that it would be difficult to view that there is a different outcome from the victim’s knife and the victim’s knife, and that it would be difficult to see that there is a different opinion from the victim’s knife and the victim’s knife, and that it would be difficult to see that there is a different opinion from the victim’s death.

② The above legal scholars have commonly expressed their opinions that the possibility of the victim’s death is very low, i.e., the possibility of the victim’s death, and that the possibility of “dovering” is very low, and that the National Scientific Investigation Service or an overseas thesis also divided into the self-employed adults with the same age group as the victim. However, the Court held that it is difficult to see that there is no possibility that the victim might have died at all as a matter of course on the basis of the fact that the court below stated that “dover pressure” can occur in the legal textbook even when 10 months or 15 months, even when 4-5 years and age group might occur (the answer to the same purpose on June 7, 2019) and that the legal scholars present at this court and the court below did not have any possibility of converging the victim’s 4 years old as a witness, if special premise, it is difficult to see that there is no possibility that the victim might have died at all as a matter of course, or that there is no possibility that the victim might have any pressure.

In full view of these various circumstances, it is difficult to view that the possibility of the victim’s pressure was completely excluded.

③ Furthermore, if the victim were to have been under the premise of 10th 27th 201 HH on February 27, 201, 19, she was under the premise that she was under the premise of 20th HH’s health care for the victim, she was under the premise that she would have been under the premise of 1st 2nd 5th H. According to the premise that she was under the premise of 1st 2nd 1st Y, she was under the premise that she was under the premise that she was under the premise of 1st 2nd 3th h h 1st h h sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc sc s.

④ In addition, even if the victim had a low possibility of suppression, it is difficult to readily conclude that the victim’s death was caused by the Defendant’s intentional pressure.

(3) As to the presumption of death

(A) As a result of the examination of the victim, the victim’s death was presumed to have been presumed to have occurred between 00:30 on March 2, 2019 and 06:00 on the premise that the ex post facto watch was observed in the front part, and both sides were observed. The prosecutor generally presumed that such phenomenon occurred when changing the body within 4:5 hours after the death, and that the victim died between 04:00 on March 2, 2019 and 06:0 (a) the prosecutor stated the final opinion in this court that the victim was presumed to have died from around 00:30 on March 2, 2019, but did not change the indictment). The prosecutor did not change the arguments related to the part that the victim was presumed to have died from around 00:30 on March 2, 2019 to from around 35:02:36, 04:48 to 04:52.

B) However, it is difficult to estimate the exact time of death of the victim on the basis of the ex post facto or both sides of the incident. The reasons are as follows.

① There is no reliable research result in predicting the ex post facto passage time up to now, and it is very dangerous to use the ex post facto passage time based on a large difference of body as evidence in the evidence of law. As such, there is a case where the actual time of death and the ex post facto passage time is not consistent with the actual time of death, and it seems that the legal scholars commonly agree to such opinion.

② Inasmuch as the state of post-employment, shape or degree of vision may vary depending on temperature, activity before death, and quantity of surrounding land at the time of the person’s death, it is only possible to estimate the approximate time of death, and it is difficult to estimate the time of death accurately, based on such changes in body.

③ 피해자의 사망시각과 관련해서도 법의학자들은 정확한 사망시각을 추정하거나 일치된 의견을 보이지는 못하였는데, 법의관 BM은 피해자에게 양측성 시반이 형성된 것에 비추어 사후 8~10시간이 경과된 상태인 것으로 가늠할 수는 있겠으나 시반, 위(胃) 내용물의 소화상태, 체온 등에 근거한 사망시간의 정밀한 추정은 어렵다는 의견을 밝혔고, BL 교수도 같은 취지에서 피해자가 04:00경~06:00경 사망한 것으로 보이나, 아동의 시반 형성과 이동은 성인과 다르고 다른 자료가 없기 때문에 정확하다고 장담할 수 없다는 의견을 밝혔다. 또한 이 법원에 증인으로 출석한 국립과학수사연구원 중앙법의학센터 CX는 사람이 사망한 후 2~3시간이 경과한 경우 사체에 이동성 시반이 나타나고 사망 후 12시간이 경과한 이후에 고정성 시반이 나타나는데, 이 사건과 같이 이동성 시반과 고정성 시반이 동시에 관찰되는 경우는 사망 후 3시간부터 12시간 사이에 모두 발생가능하다는 취지로 진술하였다.다 더욱이 원심에서는 검사가 피고인의 범행을 뒷받침하는 유력한 간접증거 중 하나로 제시한, 안방에 있던 데스크톱 컴퓨터 하드디스크에 대한 디지털증거 분석, 결과보고서 및 이에 대한 수사보고서(수사기록 제1770 내지 1792쪽)의 증명력을 그대로 받아들여 피고인이 2019. 3. 2. 02:35~02:36 위 컴퓨터로 인터넷 포털사이트 DA 블로그(DB)에 접속하여 완도와 제주도를 왕복하는 K 여객선과 관련된 글과 사진을 확인한 사실을 인정하였다. 그러나 이 법원에 증인으로 출석한 제주지방경찰청 디지털증거 분석실 소속 디지털증거분석관 DC은 피고인이 블로그 게시 글과 사진을 확인하였다고 분석된 위 시각은 실제로는 블로그에 글이나 사진이 게시된 시각을 잘못 해석한 것이라고 위 보고서 내용을 정정하였는데(이는 피고인이 수사기관에서 일관되게 주장해왔 던, 위 시간에 컴퓨터를 이용하여 K 여객선 관련 블로그에 접속한 기억이 없다는 진술과도 일치한다), 결국 이에 따르면 피고인이 2019. 3. 2. 02:35~02:36 무렵 깨어 있었다.고 단정하기 어렵게 될 뿐만 아니라 검사가 피해자가 사망하였다고 추정하는 시각에 피고인이 방에서 나와 피해자가 잠들어 있던 방을 지나 안방까지 이동하였을 가능성(위 청주 아파트 도면 참조)을 뒷받침할 만한 증거도 부족하게 된다. 앞에서 본 바와 같이 피고인이 2019. 3. 2. 04:48경과 04:52경에 휴대전화를 사용한 사실이 인정되기는 하나, 휴대전화를 사용한 시간이 길어야 2~3분에 불과하고 잠결에 잠깐 깨어 휴대전화를 만졌을 수 있다는 피고인의 주장이 객관적으로 합리성을 잃었다고 보이지 않으며, 피고인이 평소 새벽 시간대에 데스크톱 컴퓨터나 휴대전화를 빈번하게 사용하기도 한 점에 비추어 위와 같이 피고인이 휴대전화를 사용하였다 하여 이를 이례적이라고 평가하기도 어렵고, 피고인이 위 시간대에 침대를 벗어났다고 볼 만한 사정도 발견되지 않는 이상 위와 같은 휴대전화 사용 기록이 곧바로 피고인의 범행사실을 뒷받침한다고 보기 어렵다.라 결국 이 사건에서 피해자의 사망시각을 정확하게 추정하기 어렵고 이에 더하여 피해자의 사망추정 시각과 그 무렵 피고인이 깨어 있었다는 사실을 연결시키는 것도 어려운 이상, 이와 관련된 사실을 피고인의 범행을 뒷받침하는 유력한 간접정황으로 보기는 어렵다.

(4) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the motive for murder, the prosecutor has asserted that the defendant's motive for murder was sufficiently recognized in light of such circumstances.

① The Defendant, as the victim’s shesheshesheshe was in the victim’s shesheshesheshed and completed the marriage report on November 17, 2017, did not live together with the victim or directly raise the victim before the occurrence of the instant case. On the other hand, H was in the family relationship with the victim’s her husband.

② The Defendant sent and sent the Kakao Stockholm message disputing H. In particular, around October 15, 2018 and around February 13, 2019, the Defendant expressed that he was pregnant twice with H, and that he sent the Kakao Kakao Stockholm message which strongly criticizes the victim only around the time of the defect of miscarriage, or prepared a camera that expresses H as murder, garbage, or fraud, such as the description in this part of the facts charged, with the cell phone. 3H also expressed the Defendant’s attitude to the effect that he would die with H. . However, it is difficult to deem that the above circumstances were in itself a motive for murdering, and that the Defendant did not have any motive for murdering the victim to multiple persons, as described in this part of the facts charged.

① Examining the text of the message sent and received by the Defendant and H, the Defendant and H conflicted with each other, but, at the same time, the Defendant and H conflicted with the other party’s hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

② On February 24, 2019, the Defendant sent the text message that was sent to H from the second miscarriage, the Defendant prepared a note stating “if there is no important son, this relationship will end.” In light of the above, the Defendant appears to have sufficiently known the fact that in order to maintain a matrimonial relationship with H, he would have to have a son or raise a victim who is a child of H. (a). Furthermore, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that it was based on one’s own recognition from the time when H was sent to the effect that the Defendant would have been expected to take care of E in the Jeju, and thus, it is difficult to understand that it was easy to understand that the Defendant, who was aware of the son’s relationship with H and E, was committed before forming a family and killed the victim.

③ In addition, H made a statement that the victim had a good relationship with the Defendant at ordinary times, and the victim had been the victim as the body of the Defendant. In that context, it is unreasonable to view that the Defendant, as part of multiple occasions of H, has set the victim as the subject of crime. Moreover, the Defendant promised to give medical treatment to BN hospital growth clinic, BO hospital, and BP hospital for the victim whose physical strength was dysent compared with the victim on February 27, 2019. On March 1, 2019, the Defendant agreed to provide medical treatment to BN hospital growth clinic, BO hospital, and BP hospital for the victim who was dysted, and if the Defendant intended to kill the victim by attracting the victim at the discretion, it is not reasonable to have the victim attend the meeting on the date of preliminary call.

C) The Defendant was sentenced to a fine due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in 2007 and was living without any criminal history at the time, and there is no special circumstance to support the Defendant’s murdering of her child and covering his/her name. Moreover, the Defendant’s crime against her south is arising after the instant case, and the method and circumstances vary and it is difficult to deem that there is a relation to the motive for the instant crime. As long as it is not recognized that there is obvious motive for murdering the victim, it cannot be inferred that the Defendant committed this part of the crime. Ultimately, the Defendant cannot be inferred that he/she killed the victim solely on the basis that the Defendant sent a text message expressing the enemy’s personality to H or prepared a camera.

(5) With regard to the selection of the method of crime, this part of the facts charged is that the defendant kills the victim and took the responsibility for the murdering of the victim to H, thereby deep divinging him, and then causing the victim to die in the form of a brupt by dividing the number of backs of the victim from the back to the brush. However, as seen later, there is insufficient evidence to support the fact that the defendant was taking a drug of the exempted ingredients into consideration as a prior act of the crime in this part, and further, if the defendant planned to commit the crime of killing the victim for multiple purposes, various methods of crime may be considered. However, it is difficult to view that the defendant selected and implemented the above method of crime as a matter of course, which is likely to cause various risk factors that interfere with the crime, as a matter of course, are not understood in accordance with the empirical rules.

B. First, it is difficult to recognize the above facts for the following reasons with respect to whether the Defendant drinks H a medicine of exempted ingredients.

① On November 1, 2018, the Defendant complained of the cB mental health doctor or fluoral fluor in Jeju-do to treat the hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye hye.

② On March 1, 2019, a prosecutor presumed that the Defendant made CT, including H 2, 14 pinchlorates, to have H at KRW 2:0 through 23:00. However, the appraisal of the aforesaid hipine by the National Science Investigation Institute was conducted using approximately 30 cm in length as an appraisal material for the same hipine 1.5m or 4.5m in length, but it was difficult to find out that the hiplodipine was detected at the same time as that of the Defendant’s hiplodipine 2, which was not a hiplodipine 1.3m or hiplodipine 2. It was difficult to find that the Defendant’s hiplodipine 1 was administered for the same time as that of the above hiplodipine 2, which was not a hiplodipine 1. As such, it was difficult to find out the fact that hiplodipine 2.

AT introduced that the blood fin concentration between three hours after taking the maximum effect and eight hours after taking the effect, and recommended that it will not be taken out within 30 minutes before taking eating and within three hours after taking meals. H made meals until March 1, 2019, and 1:22:00 after drinking the Defendant at around 0:30 to 01:00, she cut locked and locked at around 00:30 and 07:30 on March 2, 2019. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was defiled by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the victim’s finite effect and continued operation time; (b) the victim’s personal character; and (c) the victim’s hin’s fining effect at the time of committing the crime; and (d) the Defendant did not take into account the victim’s h in light of various circumstances.

① In light of the fact that H’s act of killing the victim by subdividing the victim into beer, etc. is not easily diving, and that H was a string, it is very high risk of being detected during the commission of crime. If the victim was committed with intent to kill the victim clearly, it seems that it would be more easy and general to select the method of drinking the victim or other methods rather than at risk of such risk. However, it is not easily understood that the Defendant selected the method of crime like this part of the facts charged.

② Furthermore, if it was difficult to establish a plan that the Defendant intended to combine the substance of the hydrogen exempted ingredients with H to realize the crime, he/she should take advantage of a very fast opportunity for H to see the vehicle in which the medicine of the hydrogen exempted ingredients is mixed with the water. However, there is no evidence to find in advance that the Defendant had any special knowledge or information about the medicine containing the water exempted ingredients. As such, the Defendant appears to have never known at all as to when and when the medicine is to be administered to H, and when the medicine becomes effective and continued. Furthermore, in order to see CT to other H as presumed by the prosecutor, it should have time to stop the vehicle with H and the vehicle on the day of the crime, and furthermore, it is difficult for the Defendant to take account of the circumstances such as how and how and when, how the Defendant would have an opportunity to H and the vehicle, and how it would be difficult to understand the situation, such as when and when it would be difficult to understand, and how it would be difficult for H to take into account.

③ There are no circumstances suggesting that the Defendant, in addition to the criminal records on criminal punishment regarding traffic accidents, was a person with no specific criminal force, and the Defendant collected information on the crime, such as water exemption ingredients or quality test. As such, as the Prosecutor asserts, it is somewhat unreasonable to view that the Defendant plans to commit this part of the crime from about four months prior to the Defendant, and sent the Kakao Stockholm message with the body going to and going to and back from H around February 26, 2019, around November 4, 2018, and around February 26, 2019 ( further, even if the Defendant sent the Kakao Stockholm message to H as seen above, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant planned to commit this part of the crime from such pregnancy to the effect that the Defendant was committing the crime due to the red trial of H, etc., due to the motive for the crime).

(6) As to other facts

A prosecutor asserts that on November 14, 2018, the Defendant searched articles related to homicide using a mobile phone or searched articles that her mother with dementia died in Vietnam on February 22, 2019, one week prior to the victim’s death; on March 2, 2019, on the date of the victim’s death, it is difficult to conclude that the Defendant used the aforementioned indirect evidence to prove that her mother was not influent with the victim’s death or that her mother was not influent with the victim’s death; on March 2, 2019, on March 2, 2019, 20: (a) it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant used the aforementioned indirect evidence to prove that her mother was influent with the victim’s blood trace on three occasions; (b) it was hard to conclude that the Defendant was influent with the victim’s motive to kill the victim’s death; and (c) it was difficult to prove that her mother was influent with the victim’s death.

(7) Sub-committee

Ultimately, indirect evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having proved superiorly to the extent sufficient to deem that the Defendant committed this part of the crime. Therefore, the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles cannot be accepted.

4. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

The life of a person is the highest legal interest that the State and society should protect, and the act of infringing on it is the most fundamental and absolute value, regardless of its reason, and therefore, it is inevitable to punish it with severe punishment corresponding thereto. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant by killing the victim D, destroying and concealing the body cruelly. The life of a person committed by the Defendant was infringed. The bereaved family members suffered from the mental shock and pain that cannot be formed without finding part of the body, and the bereaved family members are able to live with life-long pain and pain. In particular, E which was committed together at the time of the commission of the crime, lost her father, and her father was the criminal who killed her father. While the Defendant asserted that it was contingent for the crime of sexual assault committed by the victim D, the Defendant still has no choice but to take responsibility for the remaining victims after killing the victim.

Considering the cruel and serious nature of the Defendant’s crime committed above, the degree of responsibility corresponding thereto, the suffering and intent of the victim’s bereaved family members, and other various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, history of the crime, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., it is difficult to deem that the main form of life imprisonment imposed by the lower court is too heavy or unreasonable.

However, the court below found the defendant guilty of murder, damage to the body, and concealment of the body of the victim D, but did not confiscate one motor vehicle (Evidence 5), one hacksaw (Evidence 9), one hacksaw (Evidence 10), two kacks (Evidence 11), one hacks (Evidence 14), one hacks (Evidence 14), one hacks (Evidence 22), and one hacks (Evidence 23), and one hacks (Evidence 23) of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the judgment.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit and the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is with merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal against the guilty portion among the judgment of the court below is well-grounded, it cannot be reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and only the part of the judgment of the court below cannot be specified and reversed because there is no part of confiscation in the judgment of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do5822, Oct. 28, 2005). Accordingly, the entire conviction portion of the judgment of the court below shall be reversed (the defendant's appeal against the guilty portion among the judgment of the court below is without merit, but the defendant's appeal against this portion shall not be dismissed separately from the judgment of the court below as long as the prosecutor accepted the appeal and reversed this part). Since the prosecutor's appeal against the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below

[Judgment of the court below which is used again for conviction] Summary of criminal facts and evidence

The summary of the evidence of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this Court and the summary of the evidence

Part 2 is as shown in each corresponding column of the original judgment, except for changing Part 1 to the witness AJ, AK, AK, L, AM, andN of the original judgment, as stated in each corresponding column of the original judgment. Therefore, in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

We accept this as it is.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of homicide and the choice of life style) and Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of destroying or concealing a dead body)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [No other punishment shall be imposed since a person selects an imprisonment for life with heavy punishment for murder];

1. Confiscation;

As seen in the determination of the allegation of unfair sentencing on the grounds of sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act, the punishment as set forth in the order shall be determined by considering all the various sentencing conditions against the defendant.

Judge Kim Gin-han

Judges Park Jong-soo

2) It is always used to treat the symptoms of a colder, such as Alphar bane, skin salt, and a mustache, and a mustache, etc.

3) The term "polym" is a translation of "polym" or "lymal" into Korean language, and does not seem to be a term or translation among scholars, but the term "polym" is to be used as it is as it is for the term "polym".

4) The term “culatory colon with strong pressure” refers to the death of a person who is pressured by strong external force and has a disability in respiratory exercise.

(v)a breathethrology means the form of a breathesis that occurs when the breather prevents the breather from properly repulmona as soon as possible to interfere with the breathe

6) Generally, by the end of one month after birth, by the end of one year, by the end of six years, by the end of six years, and by the end of 12.

7) On July 21, 2016, the Korea Food and Drug Agency (DD) has the efficacy and effect of the 'short-term treatment of the influence in which it is difficult to maintain the water surface' that it sells with the permission of the Korea Food and Drug Agency (hereinafter referred to as the "Korea Food and Drug Agency").