【Basic Facts】

After the Defendant became aware of E in investing KRW 50 million in online casino business by introducing a branch in November 2014, the Defendant came to contact with E and the return of the said investment money, etc., even during the period in which E moves to the Philippines in around 2015 and is running a casino room (referring to a gambling room in the form of borrowing and operating VIP room in the casino with a certain deposit in the casino).

한편, E은 2016년 8월경 국내에서 '주식회사 F'라는 업체를 운영하며 150억 원대의 무인가 유사수신행위를 하다가 경찰 수사를 피해 필리핀으로 건너 온 피해자 G(48세, 일명 H), I(여, 49세), J(52세, 일명 K)로부터 '은신처를 제공해 달라'라는 부탁과 함께 그들로부터 액수 불상의 투자금을 교부받은 뒤, 이를 필리핀 클락 지역에 소재한 'L 호텔' 내 'M 카지노'의 정켓방에 자신과 피해자 G의 공동명의로 예치해 두는 방식으로 투자 내지 보관하고, 그에 따라 같은 해 9월경부터 필리핀 팜팡가주 마니방 포락시 N 인근에 소재한 '0'이라는 명칭의 빌라 1동을 임차하여 피해자들을 은신시키며 함께 지내 왔다.

[Public Offering Relations]

E due to the above circumstances, as the victims suffered frequent interference with the business of scambling investment in the Republic of Korea during about one month from the 'O' to the victims, it is thought that there is no particular connection with the victims, and that there is no problem even if the victims died of all of their status while driving away, and that the above investment money would not be a problem even if they are streeted. Meanwhile, the defendant was proper for those who assist themselves and commit the crime, and the defendant was able to commit the crime together with them.

On the other hand, around October 2, 2016, the Defendant, at the Changwon-si, was in a first-time position in the Gyeongwon-si, and was in an economically difficult situation, in order to process the victims by telephone from E who caused the death of the victims as above, there would be a level of KRW 100 million. On the other hand, upon the request of the Defendant, he left the Republic of Korea on the fourth day of the same month, using the air segment provided by E.

Since then, the defendant was engaged in the activities of E in '0', and around one week with the victims, and the defendant was engaged in a scam or scam with their articles. On the other hand, the division discussed the methods of crime in the future, the escape plan, the Alba, etc., and discussed the crime and the place where the crime and the body of the body were committed, using a scambling gun or a gun prepared by E, and scam the victim's scam and the body of the victims were purchased from time to time after the crime such as a rice scamblinger, etc., and conspired with E by taking into account the situation of the victims and scambling opportunities for committing the crime.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Robbery;

At around 03:00 on October 11, 2016, the Defendant and E confirmed that the victims were locked by visiting, and attempted to commit a crime.

E은 그곳 거실에서 휴대전화로 피해자 I과 같은 방에서 자고 있던 피해자 G에게 전화를 걸어 '할 이야기가 있으니 잠깐 나와 달라'라고 유인하여 방문을 열게 한 뒤 방안으로 들이닥쳐 피해자 G, I에게 소음기 달린 45구경 권총(이하 '권총'이라 함)을 겨누어 항거하지 못하게 한 뒤, 계속하여 옆방에서 소리를 듣고 잠에서 깨어 거실로 나온 피해자 J를 권총으로 위협하여 피해자 G, I의 방에 같이 밀어 넣고 권총을 쥔 주먹으로 피해자 J의 얼굴부위를 수회 때려 항거하지 못하게 하는 한편, 피해자 G로 하여금 그곳 침대 옆에 놓인 소형 금고의 비밀번호를 말하게 하여 금고 문을 열어 두었다.

한편, 피고인은 E과의 사전 공모에 따라 위와 같이 권총으로 위협을 당하여 저항하지 못하는 피해자들의 팔, 다리 등 전신을 포장용 테이프로 결박하여 움직이지 못하게 한 뒤 테이프로 눈과 입을 가리고, E이 운전하는 검정색 카니발 승용차(차량번호 Q) 트렁크문을 열고 3열 좌석을 접어 공간을 확보한 뒤 그 내부에 피해자들을 신고 같은 날 03:30경 살해 및 사체유기 장소로 미리 보아 둔 ''로부터 약 10km가량 떨어진 팜팡가주 바크로시 R 마을 인근의 사탕수수밭으로 이동하였다.

위 이동과정에서 피해자들이 테이프로 입이 막힌 채 '윽. 윽' 소리를 지르자 위 차량을 운전하던 E은 2열 좌석에 앉은 피고인에게 '목을 졸라 죽여 버려라'라고 지시하고, 이에 피고인은 차량 내부에 있던 검정색 '노스페이스' 등산 가방 외부에 달린 수납용 끈(길이 약 60cm)을 소지하고 있던 커터칼로 잘라 내어 피해자 I, G의 목에 순차로 감고 졸라 살해하려 하였으나 위 피해자들이 격렬히 저항하는 바람에 뜻대로 되지 않던 중 'O'을 출발한 지 30여분 후 위 사탕수수밭에 연결된 뚝방길에 이르게 되었다.

The Defendant and E: (a) followed the vehicle from her place to the inside of the sprink of sugar and entered the 44m water, and (b) followed the victims from the 04:0 on the same day to the ground floor by leaving the victims up to the spher. (c) On the same day, the Defendant and E murdered the spher and 1 spher with the end of the noise machine on the back of the spher and the back of the gun; and (d) immediately after the sphering of the spher and the victim I, murdered the back head of the spher in the same manner, using the same method as “the victim I would have been subject to stress due to the collapse of the sphere.”

In addition, the defendant and E have abandoned the victims' dead bodies as described in the following paragraph 2, and returned to 'taking the above vehicle' around the wintering period, and the defendant returned to 'the above vehicle', and 'the above 100,000 won (the equivalent of 2.4 million won) from a small credit cooperative opened in advance in accordance with the direction of E, and E withdrawn from 'M casino' inside the above 'L hotel' on the 13th day of the same month, as above 'M casino' inside the above 'M casino'. As such, the victims and victims who own the joint name of themselves and G and 30 million won (the equivalent of 720,000 won in total) have invested.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with E to kill the victims, and took 100,000 won (per KRW 2,400,000) for the victims' possession, and acquired pecuniary benefits equivalent to the amount of money which is not settled or returned to the victims at the end of the casino deposit.

2. Abandonment of the dead body.

At around 05:00 on the same day after the death of the victims as described in paragraph 1, the Defendant and E extracted the victims' carcass to the sprink field of sugar 4-5 meters adjacent to the above agricultural land, and then laid the body of the J to the spatry field of sugar sponsed in advance by inserting up the body of the victims' 30cc wide, street, approximately 140cm long, about 65cm long) with soil and grass, and dive up the victims' G and I body to the inside of the spatry field of sugar so that they do not spatch the body from the outside.

Accordingly, the defendant conspireds with E to abandon the dead bodies of victims.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Each police statement to S, T or U;

1. A written statement prepared by V, W, X;

1. Report 1 to 15 table (Evidence No. 120 No. 120, No. 120, No. 120, No. 120) of the Philippines, a drilling report (main evidence of oil in the Philippines - the inserting of such material material - the inserting of such material material - the inserting of such material 185), a criminal investigation report (the original report and an autopsy report prepared by the police officer of the Philippines) (the original report No. 187, No. 187), a criminal investigation report (the report on the progress of preparation of the Republic of Korea Courisc in the Philippines), and

1. Statement of seizure (No. 52,78) by the police;

1. The Y original statement, the translation (No. 123), the firearms ammunition identification report and the firearms photograph (No. 127), the appraisal meeting report (No. 131), the original report and the translation (No. 216) of the information report;

1. The CCTV-cap photograph (No. 31), ground plan (No. 159), photograph (No. 161 in order), on-site photograph (No. 171 in order), on-site photograph (No. 171 in order), on-site photograph (No. 191 in order), on-site message (No. 191 in order), on-site message (No. 211 in order) from May 14, 201 to May 14 in order), and PT data (No. 134 in order).

Application of Statutes

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

The first sentence of Article 338, Article 30 of the Criminal Code (the point of each robbery, each selection of life style), Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Code (the point of each abandonment of a dead body)

1. Punishment for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 (As punishment is more severe than punishment is selected for life for each robbery, no other punishment shall be imposed) of the Criminal Act.

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)2 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration of favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing):

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel (the reason for the crime)

1. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel;

A. 100,000 Pest portion of a credit cooperative

1) In addition to the confession of the defendant, there is no supporting evidence to support the fact that the defendant conspired with E that 100,000 won of a credit cooperative was forcibly taken place. Thus, the confession of the defendant constitutes evidence unfavorable to the defendant and such confession is not admitted as evidence of guilt.

2) The Defendant did not have conspired to forcibly take 100,000 pages inside the EP safe.

3) The Defendant: (a) the Defendant was 100,000 copies of the Defendant’s safe, and the Defendant was able to keep it in custody and return it to E; and (b) there is no intention to obtain illegal orders.

C. Part on property profits related to casino deposits 30 million won

1) This part of the facts charged cannot be deemed as having been specified in the facts charged on the grounds that there are no specific facts of the crime, such as the investors and investment amount invested in the E in fact, the counterpart to the settlement or return of casino deposits, and the number of returned amounts, etc. Accordingly, this part of the indictment procedure is null and void in violation of the provisions of the law.

2) The Defendant did not have conspired with E to murder victims for the purpose of evading obligations against the victims of E.

3) Not only is it clear that the existence of obligations against the victims of E exists, but also because the heir of the victims and his heir secure the method of confirming the existence of claims, control of pecuniary profits cannot be deemed to have been transferred from the victims to the defendant, so the crime of robbery is not established.

2. Determination

A. 100,000 Pest portion of a credit cooperative

1) Judgment on the non-existence of supporting evidence against the confession of the defendant

A) Relevant legal principles

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient to recognize that the confession of a criminal defendant is not processed, even if the whole or essential part of the criminal facts is not sufficient to recognize the whole or essential part of the criminal facts, and it is sufficient to prove that the confession of a criminal defendant is true, not processed, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, evidence for confession and reinforcement is sufficient to prove the criminal facts as a whole when it is possible to prove the whole criminal facts as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do1897, Jan. 8, 2002).

B) Determination

(1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: (i) the Defendant led the victims to the investigation of the instant crime while being investigated by the police; (ii) led them to the 5th investigation; and (iii) under the investigation of the 6th investigation, the Defendant sent them to the victim G for opening a meeting of ‘E’ and opened a meeting of ‘E’; and (iv) recorded the number, and opened a password with the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the Defendant returned the 100,000 flusium totaled of 10,000 flusium, and the Defendant made a consistent statement to the investigation agency on the 100 flusium portion of the instant crime; and (iii) made it possible for the Defendant to consistently enter the 100 flusium and the flusium to return the flusium to the Defendant’s prosecutor’s office; and (iv) made it clear to the effect that the Defendant made a consistent statement on the 100 flusium.

(2) Therefore, among the statement of Y (YY, E’s driver and security officer) prepared by the police of the Philippines, there was 0 “0” as well as E on October 11, 2016. At the time, in the room used by his/her wife, he/she directly purchased from “Z” in the E’s heart before he/she had shown that there was a door of the Treasury, and there was no content. In addition, prior to leaving the house, he/she left the house, he/she left the house, and there was no room for a safe, such as a safe and a travel room, in accordance with the direction of E.

‘Statement to the effect that the Defendant’s seizure of the evidence that it appears to have been worn immediately after the Defendant committed murder against the victims’ (No. 78) will constitute a supporting evidence for the Defendant’s confession.

2) Determination as to the non-existence of public offering with E

A) Relevant legal principles

In order to constitute a joint principal offender, it is necessary to perform a crime through the functional control of a criminal act by a joint doctor, which is a subjective element, and the intent of joint process ought to be the same as a whole in order to commit a specific criminal act with a joint intent, and the purport of the joint principal offender shall be to move his/her own intent by using another person’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4792, Nov. 9, 2001): Provided, That the intent to jointly perform a crime necessary for the establishment of a joint principal offender is sufficient when the criminal act exists, and the prior mother is not required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do1373, Aug. 20, 195).

B) Determination

(1) 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, ① E은 2016. 10. 11. 03:00경 피해자들에게 권총을 겨누고, 권총을 쥔 주먹으로 피해자 J의 얼굴 부위를 수회 때리는 등 위협하였으며, 피고인은 피해자들의 전신을 포장용 테이프로 결박한 사실, ② 그 직후 E은 '금고를 열어라'라고 말하고, 피고인은 피해자 G에게 '숫자를 불러주면 고개를 끄덕여서 대답해'라고 하면서 숫자를 불러주면 피해자 G이 고개를 끄덕이는 방법으로 금고의 비밀번호를 알아내고자 한 사실, ③ 피고인은 피해자 G이 잘못된 비밀번호를 알려주자 '똑바로 이야기 해'라고 말하며 손바닥으로 피해자 G의 뒷통수를 때리는 등의 방법으로 비밀번호를 알아내어 금고를 연 사실, ④ 피고인과 E이 피해자들을 살해하고 ''로 돌아온 후 E은 피고인에게 위와 같이 열어둔 금고 안에 있는 10만 페소를 '가지고 있어라'라고 하였고, 피고인은 이를 꺼내어 자신의 크로스백에 넣은 사실이 인정된다.

(2) Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, if the Defendant and E conspired to murder victims and caused the victim G to open the door of the safe, the Defendant recognized that E had an intention to forcibly take money and valuables in the safe from the latest, and shared the robbery with such awareness (as long as the Defendant’s conspiracy relation with taking 100,000 SPs inside of the safe is recognized with respect to taking a 100,000 SPs inside of the safe, so long as there is no conspiracy relation with the Defendant and E with respect to taking a 100,00 SPs inside of the safe, and thus, the Defendant and the defense counsel should be punished according to the murder rather than the robbery under the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, as long as the Defendant did not have a robbery relation with taking a 100,000 SPs inside of the safe, the Defendant and the defense counsel should not be accepted).

3) Determination as to the non-existence of the intention of unlawful acquisition

A) Relevant legal principles

The intent of unlawful acquisition refers to the intent to use and dispose of another person's goods, such as his/her own property, by excluding the right holder, in accordance with the economic usage thereof. Thus, the intent to possess the economic interest of the goods permanently is not necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do16827, Mar. 14, 2013).

B) Determination

As seen earlier, the Defendant and E assaulted the victims of the crime, opened a door of the safe, and killed the victims, and then taken out 100,000 SPs at the above safe. The Defendant’s intent to illegally obtain 100,000 SPs should be recognized in light of the circumstances of taking the above 100,000 SPs and the fact that the Defendant possessed it for 2 days without any measure regarding the handling of the above 100,000 SPs and the Defendant held the above 10,00 SPs and 2 days after the commission of the crime. Even if the Defendant had taken the above 100,00 SPs and 10,000 SPs and 2 days after the completion of the crime, it is merely merely

B. Part on property profits related to casino deposits 30 million won

1) Judgment on the unspecified assertion of facts charged

A) Relevant legal principles

The purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the scope of trial against the court and facilitate the exercise of the right of defense by specifying the scope of defense against the defendant. Thus, in light of the nature of the crime prosecuted, it is sufficient to specify the facts causing the public prosecution by stating the time, time, place, method, and purpose, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts constituting the grounds for the public prosecution from other facts. Even if some of them are unclear, the facts charged can be specified by other matters indicated together with the above, and thus, if the exercise of the right of defense of the defendant is not impeded, the validity of the public prosecution does not affect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision

B) Determination

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., ① the investigative agency, based on the statement of withdrawal (DPOS IT/WAL FAOM, No. 1479 pages of evidence records) and the statement of the neighboring persons E, including V, found that E received investment money from the victims, and then deposited it under the joint name of 'M casino' and 'M casino'. However, it seems difficult to clearly identify the specific amount due to the victims' death and E escape, and ② under these circumstances, it is difficult to say that the prosecutor clearly stated the time and place of the crime, motive and method of the crime, and circumstance before and after the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant's right to defense is not sufficient to exercise his/her right to defense, even if it does not interfere with the defendant's right to defense.

2) Determination as to the non-existence of public offering with E

A) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

① On October 2, 2016, the Defendant handled the instant case from E in order to process one of the instant persons, and then left the Republic of Korea on the 4th of the same month upon the request of 'O' to provide that KRW 100 million would have occurred. After that, the Defendant discussed the methods of committing the instant case, including E and the victims, escape plans, and Alba, with approximately one week volume in 'O', and discussed the methods of committing the instant case and the method of committing the instant case, escape plans, and Alba, etc.

② The Defendant, under investigation by the police, led to the occurrence of the crime of this case, led the victims to the fifth investigation, and led them to the 7th investigation, and, upon receiving the 7th investigation, the Defendant stated to the effect that “When she became 2 to 3 days after the entry into the Philippines, E would have to be treated as 300 million won investments from the victims,” and that “the victims would have continued to make an investment in the casino box before 2 to 3 days before the occurrence of the instant case.” The Defendant stated to the effect that “the victims would have been able to settle this case soon.” The Defendant stated to the effect that “the victims would have been able to settle this case to have been invested in the casino through E”. After being investigated by the prosecution, the Defendant consistently stated to the same purport.

③ Prior to the instant case, the Defendant had no personal and economic interest with the victims, and there was no special motive or reason to participate in the commission of murdering the victims, if he or she did not intend to obtain economic benefits from the victims by murdering the victims.

B) In light of the above circumstances, even if the defendant did not know the existence of a casino deposit money of 30 million won before and after the crime of this case, the defendant knew that he/she had an intent to evade obligations to the victims by murdering victims, and that he/she shared the murder for the victims with such awareness. ( Furthermore, the defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted to the purport that the defendant should be punished against the victims pursuant to the proviso of Article 33 of the Criminal Act, since he/she processed the murder for the purpose of evading obligations to the victims without the purpose of evading his/her own obligations, the defendant and his/her defense counsel should be punished according to the murder rather than robbery. Article 33 of the Criminal Act refers to a particular character and status of the criminal as a special identification of a certain crime, and thus, it is difficult to accept the defendant's special character and status as the defendant and his/her defense counsel's liability for robbery or as a special purpose.

3) Determination as to the non-transfer of the control of property profits

A) Relevant legal principles

To establish the crime of robbery, first of all, the establishment of robbery must be recognized; to establish robbery, the intent of unlawful acquisition should be required; and to recognize the acquisition of property benefits, which is the requirement for the establishment of the so-called crime of forced acquisition under the latter part of Article 333 of the Criminal Act, there should be a situation where property benefits are in fact transferred to a criminal or a third party at a disadvantage against the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do1098, Jun. 24, 2004).

B) Determination

(1) The following circumstances are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

(1) There is no objective document, such as an investment agreement to verify the investment relationship between E and victims, the amount of investment, the method of return, etc.

② At around August 2016, E received a request from the victims who had taken the police investigation into the Republic of Korea upon the request of “the high seas”, and then sent victims to “0” from September of the same year. “In spite of the talking that the father-child J would depart from the Republic of Korea by telephone at the time of departure, they did not speak anywhere or for any other reason.” The statement in this Court of AA (the victim J’s children) to the effect that “the call was the last time.” This is consistent with the reason for the escape of the above victims.

③ Although U.S.’s wife, along with the victims, worked as approximately two months in the Philippines, it is difficult to view that U.S. knew of the developments leading up to the escape of the victims, U.S. age, victims and U.S., U.S. relationship between U and E, etc. Furthermore, it appears that the victims knew of the fact that they invested a certain amount of money to E, such as V, etc. Furthermore, even though the victims knew of the fact that they invested a certain amount of money, it does not seem that the victims knew of the investment relationship, amount of investment, and method of return between the victims and E in detail.

(2) Comprehensively considering the above circumstances, it would be deemed that the Defendant and the victims of this case murdered that the victims of the E’s obligation would have been transferred to the future beyond the limit of temporary dismissal of the victims of the E’ obligation.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 but not more than 50 years;

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

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (Murder combined with Serious Crimes)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: planned murder and cruel methods

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 25 years but not more than 50 years (including special aggravated areas, recommended sentences according to sentencing guidelines include life imprisonment, but the maximum applicable sentences according to discretionary mitigation are 50 years and according to the maximum applicable sentences)

3. Determination of sentence;

Since human life is an absolute value that should be protected in any circumstances because it is a source of human dignity and has lost once, it is an absolute value that should be protected in any circumstances. Therefore, murdering a human life is a serious crime that cannot be used for any reason.

The crime of this case is an act of killing three or more persons who accepted the proposal of E to give money to the victims who had not been aware of that fact, and with considerable advance plans. Furthermore, the crime of this case is committed for the purpose of pecuniary gain, and is committed for the purpose of the crime of this case, and is committed for the purpose of the original relationship, save, and contingent saves, which are different in nature from ordinary murder arising from the original relationship, save, contingent saves, etc., and thus, is extremely bad.

After responding to the victim's request for murder, the defendant specifically planned the crime of this case, such as responding to the victim's request for murder, taking a physical answer to the death of the victim, taking a gun into practice, purchasing a shot tape in advance for reporting and packaging, etc. Furthermore, the defendant attempted to kill the victim I and G by string the victim's telegraph by leaving the victim's telegraph in a packing tape, and attempted to kill the victim I and G by string. Ultimately, the defendant killed the victim by shot gun on the head part of the victim's head, and then abandoned the body. The circumstances of the crime of this case are planned, and the method of the crime is very harsh.

After committing the instant crime, the Defendant, along with E, appears to have committed a crime that does not have the sense of responsibility for committing the instant crime by enjoying amusement in casino clubs. After the investigation into himself/herself began, the circumstances after committing the instant crime are not good, such as causing confusion in the investigation by destroying evidence, such as taking away the cell phone text messages from the lecture.

As seen earlier, the Defendant’s criminal law was planned and very harsh, and during that process, the victims seem to have lost their scam in severe fears, and the bereaved families of the victims also have to live in a life-long scam and sufferings. On the contrary, the Defendant did not take any measures to cure the scam and pains to the bereaved families of the victims.

Considering the above circumstances, it seems inevitable to strictly punish the defendant who is isolated from society for a long time.

However, the Defendant recognized that he participated in the crime of murder and the crime of abandonment of a dead body, and made a concrete statement of the overall process of the crime, and divided his mistake, and it seems that there is no actual pecuniary gain from the crime of this case. The Defendant does not have any particular criminal history except the suspension of indictment prior to the crime of this case. In addition, considering the responsibility for the serious result of murder by three victims, the degree of participation is relatively more severe than that of the E taking the lead of the crime of this case.

Furthermore, as to the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the Defendant: (a) accepted the proposal for the instant crime; and (b) attempted to waive the crime before the commencement of the commission; and (c) sought to leave the conspiracy to commit the instant crime; and (d) sought to have been involved in the instant crime without any choice due to E’s instructions, taking a shot gun on the day of the commission of the crime; and (b) during the pertinent period, the Defendant’s behavior, character, character, and character appearing by the Defendant’s statement at this court; and (c) during the pertinent period, which can be known through the Defendant’s assertion and various circumstances, such as the time until the instant crime was completed; and (d) the time when the instant crime was committed; and (e) the Defendant’s behavior following the instant crime, such as returning to Korea without demanding KRW 100 million originally promised to commit the Defendant’s statement at this court; and (e) there is room to take into account some developments leading up to the Defendant’s participation in the instant crime.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into consideration all the aforementioned circumstances, including the character, conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and background of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the primary facts charged

E was invested in the 30 million won book (an amount equivalent to about 720 million won in Chinese currency) from the victims, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment, in a way that they deposit the 'M casino' in the 'L hotel' in the 'L casino' in the 'L casino' area located in the Switzerland with their own and the victim G in the joint name.

The Defendant and E, as stated in the facts of the crime, murdered the victims and abandoned the victims’ dead bodies. Since then, around October 2013, 2016, E withdrawn 30 million won of the victims’ investments deposited under the joint name of himself and the victims’ G, as above, in the scamet room of the above “M casino”.

Accordingly, in collusion with E, the defendant murdered victims, and took a total of KRW 30 million ( approximately KRW 720 million) who owns the victims.

2. Relevant legal principles

In order to establish the crime of robbery, the crime of robbery is established. The crime of robbery is established by removing the possession of another person’s property owned by another person by assault or threat against the will of the owner or possessor, and by moving it to one’s own or a third person. On the other hand, possession under the Criminal Act is a fact-finding by a person who actually controls an object, and the possession of property is maintained in a place where the possessor’s de facto control is practically over, and thus, is an object of robbery (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8081, Mar. 24, 2006, etc.).

3. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as above, E’s deposit of the money invested by the victims in a casino, the circumstance in which E alone repeats deposit and withdrawal, entry in the withdrawal record, and whether the Defendant was aware of the amount deposited in the casino, etc., it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the amount of KRW 30 million deposited in the casino is property under the control of the victims under the social norms, and that the Defendant conspired to take the above 30 million amount of money deposited in the casino to kill the victims and to take the above 30 million amount of money. Furthermore, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that it was sufficiently proven beyond reasonable doubt.

(a) 30 million won or more deposited in a casino;

1) According to the statement and the statement in the V police station, E stated that he would leave money to the bank on September 29, 2016, and that he would not know of it. It means that he could find 24 hours at any time at the time when he would leave the casino. This means that he could find 24 hours at any time when he would leave the casino. He left the casino as V in the “M casino” with 7 million P, and then changed the name in the joint name of E and victim G, and repeated the deposit and withdrawal for six times from September 29, 2016 to October 13, 2016.

2) According to the statement in the above withdrawal records, although the above deposit is jointly held in the name of E and the victim G, it appears that E could have independently withdrawn the above deposit because it is stated as 'ONLY ENY CEW (E may only be withdrawn)' in the upper part. In fact, the Defendant voluntarily withdrawn the closure of 30 million won deposited in the above 'M casino on October 13, 2016 after killing the victims.

(b) Whether the defendant's deposits in the casino are recognized as a page of 30 million won;

1) From the time when the police was subject to the seventh investigation, the Defendant relatively consistent statement to the effect that “the fact that the victim was making an investment to E is aware of the fact that the victim was making an investment from E or the victim, but is not accurately aware of the details of the investment, the amount of investment, the method of return, etc.”

2) If the defendant knew of the existence of the above 30 million page 30,000,000 won in Korean currency, it would be natural to participate in the withdrawal of the page after killing the victims or at least to demand the distribution thereof to E, but the defendant seems not to have made such demand to E.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged must be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of crime. However, as long as it is found guilty of robbery in the judgment which is the preliminary facts charged, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered separately.

Judges Man-ho

Judges Han Han-chul