[살인·살인미수·살인음모][공2007.9.1.(281),1419]
[1] The meaning of an impossible crime
[2] The case holding that the act of homicideing a victim by drinking water, which can cause the death of a person by drinking more than a certain amount of food, constitutes an impossible crime of murder, not an impossible crime, but an attempted crime of murder
[1] An impossible crime refers to a case where the possibility of occurrence of a result or infringement of legal interests cannot be absolute due to the nature of the crime.
[2] The case holding that an attempted murder of a victim is not an impossible crime but an attempted murder by drinking water, which can cause death of a person by eating more than a certain quantity of food, or by drinking water, which is a brug or a brug, which can cause death of a person
[1] Article 27 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 27, 250 (1), and 254 of the Criminal Act
[1] Supreme Court Decision 77Do4049 delivered on March 28, 1978 (Gong1978, 10761) Supreme Court Decision 85Do206 delivered on March 26, 198 (Gong1985, 664) Supreme Court Decision 98Do2313 delivered on October 23, 198
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Lee Sung-hwan
Seoul High Court Decision 2007No78 decided April 19, 2007
The appeal is dismissed. 85 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1
An impossible crime refers to a case where there is no possibility of a result or infringement of legal interests due to the nature of a crime (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do2313, Oct. 23, 1998).
According to the records, the "surgic roots" or "surgic roots" can be ruled out that it is a drug used as a drug in the past because it contains a chronic surgy, etc. but contains toxic substance, without lowering its toxicity, and can not be ruled out the possibility that death may occur due to different volume and body effects or side effects if it takes water, without mixing other medicine. In full view of the evidence in collusion with the non-indicted 1 of the judgment of the court below, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above crime or by violating the rules of evidence, etc.
2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3
In full view of the evidence revealed by the court below, the court below's determination that the defendant was a co-principal of the crime of murder by advising the non-indicted 1 to the effect that the victim was killed by KONI while making a telephone conversation and that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 died by KONI, and thereby, recognizing the fact that the victim was killed by KONI, the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2 as a co-principal of the crime of murder is just in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the number of days of detention after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)