Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape), rape, and narcotics;

The specialty of credit, in violation of the Act on the Management of Documents, fraud, fraud by computer, etc., fraud, and credit.

Violation of the Financial Business Act, thief, and Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

Use photographing ofRa, etc., Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Bodily Injury), Do

Violation of the Road Traffic Act (Measures Not to be Taken after Accidents)

The defendant shall be ordered to complete the sexual assault treatment program for 80 hours.

The public information about the accused shall be disclosed through an information and communications network for ten years, and the notified information shall be notified during the aforesaid period (However, the target crime shall be limited to crimes of rape, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Crime of Use of Camera, etc.) and violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc.

Among the facts charged in the case, the victim C, D, and E are found to have violated the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., rape, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, violation of the Victims F (Gamera), violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Control of Narcotics, etc. (flag) against G (Gamera), violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and violation of the Victim D, E

"Criminal Records".

On February 2, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 11, 2017.

“2017 Highest955

The Defendant had been aware of the instant victims through smartphone-making app, despite the fact that the Defendant was not a person handling narcotics, attempted to rape the victims, by suppressing the psychotropic drugs that the Defendant had influorial psychotropic drugs, so that the victims would be forced to fluoral psychotropic drugs, so-called a set-off, a set-off, a set-off, a set-off, a set-off, and a set-off, and a set-off, a set-off, and a set-off, a set-off, and a set-off, a set-off.

1. Larceny against the victim H, or violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. or rape;

On July 22, 2017, around 22:32, the Defendant taken one copy of the Cze Card (Credit Card Number K) of the Bank owned by the victim within the bank located in the rest of the toilet between the victim and the victim, at the J main station located in Gangnam-gu I and I in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, and the first floor.

After all, the Defendant added approximately 3 eggs of the psychotropic drugs that the Defendant was in possession of by the Defendant between the victim’s seat, and caused the victim to listen to them by inserting them to the alcohol residues of the victim.

Around 23:48 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) was sexual intercourse with the victim by 803 “M hotel in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City L”, putting the victim from clothes of the victim who was unable to resist his mind and mind; and (b) inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sound. As such, the Defendant stolen the victim’s physical card, used psychotropic drugs for the victim, and rape the victim without a person handling narcotics.

2. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims N or the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc.

Around 20:20 on July 31, 2017, the Defendant ordered the victim, before the victim N (n, 31 years of age) arrive at the P coffee shop in Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, the Defendant issued an order in advance to the drinking beverage, and then, the Defendant added approximately 3 eggs of the psychotropic drug that the Defendant was in possession of, and allowed the victim to walk up, such beverage by inserting approximately 3 eggs of the psychotropic drugs, the Defendant was in possession of, the psychotropic drugs. After doing so, the Defendant was deprived of the mind, and the Defendant, at around 21:17 of the same day, invaded the victim according to the Incheon Gyeyang-gu, Qu andO, the residence of the victim, and her clothes, and had sexual intercourse by inserting the victim’s sexual organ into the part of the Defendant.

As a result, the Defendant used psychotropic drugs to the victim who was not a person handling narcotics, and invaded the victim's residence, and raped the victim.

3. Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (carmers and photographs);

The Defendant, at the same time and at the same place as the above Paragraph (1), taken pictures of sexual intercourses with the victim H using a mobile phone shooting function, as well as the sexual intercourses with the victim from around that time to July 31, 2017, such as the list 1 of the crimes committed in the attached Table 1.

Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of another person who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a mechanical device with a camera function against his will.

4. Fraud or violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

On July 22, 2017, the Defendant: (a) calculated the drinking value equivalent to KRW 31,000, which was operated by the victims of the victim’s name in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government I on July 2, 2017; and (b) stolen the Defendant as if the Defendant was H.

In addition, from around that time to August 4, 2017, the above bank's cream card presented the above bank's cream card to pay the price, and acquired a stolen card with the same method as the attached list 2 in five times from that time to August 4, 2017.

“2017 Highest 9900

The defendant is a person who is engaged in driving of the RWts' car.

On May 8, 2017, at around 00:22, the Defendant continued the seven-lane road in front of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, along seven-lanes from the edge of Gangnam-gu, to the distance of active service. In such cases, the Defendant has a duty of care to prevent accidents by safely operating his/her operation and operation of his/her operation and operation of his/her operation and steering system accurately.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went into operation on the front side of the car of the Defendant, thereby resulting in the Defendant’s failure to stop and departing from the front side of the Defendant’s proceeding in accordance with the new subparagraph (62).

The Defendant suffered injury to the victim V (age 47) who was on board the said taxi due to the above occupational negligence by causing about three weeks of medical treatment, and at the same time, the Defendant did not immediately stop the said taxi so that the amount equivalent to KRW 946,040, including the exchange of a spread, would be damaged to the extent that the repair cost would be equivalent to KRW 946,040, and escaped without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victim.

Summary of Evidence

“2017 Highest955

1. The defendant's legal statement (as of the fifth trial date), 1);

1. The defendant's partial statement in the second protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement of H and N;

1. As a result of a genetic testing report, the result of a reply to the legal chemical appraisal report, the result of a reply to the narcotic appraisal report, reply (Evidence Nos. 33), the transmission of the results of search in the database of DNA identification information, the gene appraisal report, and the narcotics appraisal report;

1. Investigation report (hereinafter referred to as "M"), investigation report (to investigate CCTVs in the hotel or outside the hotel of "M"), investigation report, investigation report (to secure CCTVs in the coffee shop), investigation report (to secure CCTVs), internal investigation report - confirmation of payment means at the time of purchase of the suspect's key, report on internal investigation (to secure X CCTV images), investigation report (to secure the content of face-to-face investigation and hosting), investigation report (to attach data on video analysis of the CCTVs in the coffee shop);

1. A copy of a prescription and drug use manual, prescription (Evidence No. 120), and prescription slip;

1. Details of conversation with the suspect A;

1. A detailed statement of use of each card, a detailed statement of use of a victim H card, a detailed statement of convenience store use, and a detailed statement of suspect's card use;

1. Suspect A photograph, J main photograph, J CCTV images, MO CCTV images, MO CCTV images, MO CCTV photographs, CCTV photographs within convenience stores, CCTV photographs within convenience stores, photographic data submitted by the victim, CCTV images at the scene of the occurrence, photographic data, CCTV images, and CCTV images "2017 Gohap90";

1. Statement of the accused in the third protocol of trial;

1. The police statement concerning T;

1. Statement on the occurrence of V traffic accidents;

1. The actual survey report on traffic accidents;

1. Medical certificate (V), medical record (V);

1. A detailed statement of repair expenses;

1. Investigation report (report on the results of confirming the images of the damaged vehicle booms) and investigation report (report attached to the medical records, etc. of the injured party V);

1. Eight previous years on the screen of a vehicle photograph and a damaged vehicle screen image screen;

1. Application of statutes, such as written judgments (U.S. District Court Decision 2016 Height4533, etc. and case inquiry);

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 3(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Articles 319(1) and 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 60(1)2 and Article 4(1)3(c) of the Narcotics Control Act, Article 60(1)1 and Article 2 subparag. 3(c) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc., Articles 61(1)5 and 4(1)1 and 4(1)3(d) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, Article 319(1) and 297 of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1)3 of the Criminal Act, Article 60(1)2 of the Road Traffic Act, Article 329 of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the use of a plabry), Article 329(1)3(c) of the Criminal Act, Article 14(1) of the Act, etc.

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act (Aggravated Injury) and the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, the punishment imposed on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Aggravated Injury) with heavy punishment, each of the crimes of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the victim H, the punishment imposed on the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

1. Selection of punishment;

A sentence of imprisonment shall be imposed on a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the crime of imprisonment for a limited term, each of the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., each of the crime of fraud, violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, theft, violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes)

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act shall be applicable to concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, which is the largest penalty (a concurrent crimes with the punishment prescribed for concurrent crimes)

1. Confiscation2);

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Order to complete programs;

The main sentence of Article 16 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. An order for disclosure and notification;

Article 47(1) and Article 49(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes; Article 49(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse; Article 49(1)2 and the main sentence of Article 50(1)2 of the Act on the Protection of Children and Juveniles against Sexual Abuse;

2. Reference to the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria are not applied to each crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are concurrent crimes. However, the sentencing criteria are referred to as the sentencing criteria for the

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for the Prevention of Sexual Crimes in Type 2 (Rape/Special Rape, etc. in Connection with Relatives)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravated Elements: Aggravatedalalalal acts or increase in sense of sexual humiliations;

Reduction Elements: Non-conformity of Punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 5 years of imprisonment to 8 years

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and various sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, such as the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as the order.

○○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The Defendant had the victim H and N lose the mind by using psychotropic drugs, and had sexual intercourse with the victims, and taken the face of the crime. In light of the background and method of the crime, the risk of the means of the crime, repetition, etc., the above victims appear to have been suffering from considerable mental impulse and sexual humiliation, and the victim H was punished against the Defendant. Furthermore, the Defendant committed a crime by cutting the victim H’s physical card and using it, causing a traffic accident, and attempted to escape without taking necessary measures, such as providing relief to the victims. In particular, at the time of each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was sentenced to suspension of execution on May 20, 201 to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six years, and even if he had been aware of the possibility of committing the crime in the judgment of the lower court, the Defendant did not have been aware of the possibility of recidivism in the criminal trial.

The favorable circumstances of ○: The defendant shows that his mistake is divided, and reflects it.

The victim N does not want a criminal defendant's punishment by mutual consent with the defendant. The defendant's parents desire to keep the defendant's wife continuously. On the other hand, since each of the crimes in this case is related to concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act with the crime of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. in the judgment that became final and conclusive, the equality in judgment should be taken into account at the same time. Where a conviction becomes final and conclusive with respect to the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape in Residence), the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes) in the judgment that is subject to registration and submission of personal information, the defendant becomes a person subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 42 (1) of the same

Meanwhile, with respect to the defendant, a sex crime which causes the registration of personal information under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes and other crimes are concurrent pursuant to Article 37 of the Criminal Act and the punishment is prescribed pursuant to Article 38 of the Criminal Act. The period for registering personal information resulting therefrom is 20 years pursuant to Article 45(1)2 and (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes. However, considering the nature of each of the crimes in this case and seriousness of the crimes, it is not recognized that the period for registering personal information of the defendant is unreasonable, and therefore, the period for

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. against Victims C and rape;

On July 24, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 01:00, at AAA located in Sinsan-dong, U.S., Sinsan-dong, Sinsan-si, and (b) around 25 years of age, the Defendant: (c) placed the victim’s psychotropic drugs held by the Defendant, as a psychotropic drug, and (d) psychotropic drugs, and (d) 3 eggs of rop content, as incidental to the vegetable drugs, and had the victim drink the vegetable drugs.

After that, if the victim was unable to perform the foregoing alcohol, the Defendant, who was sexually aware of his mind on the same day, exceeded the clothes of the victim who was sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually,

(b) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. against Victims D, and rape;

On August 8, 2017, 22:53 around 22:53, the Defendant taken the credit card (credit card NoB) owned by the victim from the bank located at the center of the victim, where the victim D (hereinafter referred to as 24 years of age) was located in the toilets in Gangnam-gu I and the first floor in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and continued to put about about 3 eggs of the psychotropic drug, the psychotropic drug, and the ropiral stability agents in the ropirative ingredients, and caused the victim to listen to them.

After that, the victim of drinking alcohol, who lost his mind on the same day, was the victim of drinking alcohol, and the defendant, at around 23:00 on the same day, exceeded the clothes of the victim, who did not resist his mind, and sexual intercourse by inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sexual organ. Accordingly, the defendant, who is not a person handling narcotics, used psychotropic drugs to the victim, and rape the victim.

(c) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (frighting and rape) against victims E;

On August 4, 2017, at the main point of Gangnam-gu I and the first floor J around 21:36, the Defendant taken up the gap between the victim E (n.e., 27 years of age) in this toilet at the home of the victim, and made the victim drink ( Card No. AC) owned by the victim, and added approximately 3 eggs of DNA drugs, psychotropic drugs prescribed by the Defendant, and psychotropic drugs, flacosp, and flacosp, and flacosp, put them into the alcohol of the victim and flacosp to the remaining alcohol of the victim.

After that, the Defendant, who was the victim of drinking alcohol, lost his mind on the same day, was sexual intercourse with the victim by 'AE hotel Gangnamer 1601' located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AD, 'AE hotel Gangnamer 1,601', 'AE hotel Gangnamer 1601, who was unable to resist from the mind of the victim, and inserting the Defendant's sexual organ into the part of the victim'. Accordingly, the Defendant used psychotropic drugs to the victim, who was not a person handling narcotics, and rape the victim.

(d) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. against Victims F, or violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, against the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

On August 12, 2017, at around 19:30 on August 12, 2017, the Defendant ordered the victim to take a pre-sale drinking in Gangnam-gu Seoul AF and AG located on the first floor, and before the victim F (the 28 years of age) arrives, the Defendant ordered the drinking beverage in advance. The Defendant added approximately 3 eggs of the psychotropic drugs, the Defendant was in possession of the drinking beverage, and caused the victim to walk it.

After that, the victim was unable to engage in sexual intercourse with the victim by entering the victim at around 23:30 on the same day by entering the victim’s residence, Gangnam-gu Seoul, AH and ○, Seoul, which is the victim’s residence, and attempted to be exempted from the victim’s clothes, and inserting the Defendant’s sexual organ into the part of the victim’s sexual organ, but the victim did not have the intent to resist. Accordingly, the Defendant was not a person handling narcotics, but attempted to commit sexual intercourse with the victim by using psychotropic drugs for the victim, and by impairing the victim’s residence.

(e) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against Victims G (aggravated Rape);

On August 20, 2017, the Defendant purchased two livers at the Seo-gu AI and the third level neighborhood convenience stores, and caused the victim to listen to the livers by inserting about 3 psychotropic drugs, which are psychotropic drugs in possession of the Defendant’s possession at the livers solution.

Afterwards, the victim was found to have been in the mind of the victim, and at around 21:30 on the same day, the defendant invadedd by the method of entering the victim's residence, according to Daejeon Pung-gu AJ orO, which is the victim's residence, and exceeded the clothes of the victim, and sexual intercourse with the victim's sexual organ inserted into the part of the victim's sexual organ. Accordingly, the defendant, other than a person handling narcotics, used psychotropic drugs for the victim, invaded into the victim's residence, and raped the victim.

(f) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

The Defendant taken a picture of the victim C’s sexual intercourse at the same time and time as the foregoing paragraph 1(a) and at the same time, using the cell phone camera shooting function of mobile phones held at a place, as well as taking a picture of the victim C’s sexual intercourse at a total of 11 times from around that time to August 4, 2017, as shown in attached Table 3.

Accordingly, the defendant taken the body of another person who could cause sexual humiliation or shame by using a mechanical device with a camera function against his will.

(g) Fraud, fraud by use of computers, etc., and violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

On August 3, 2017, the Defendant calculated the drinking value equivalent to 31,00 won at the J branch in Gangnam-gu, Seoul, the Defendant: (a) presented the credit card under the name of Korea, which was taken out by the method referred to in paragraph (b) above, as if the Defendant was able to complete the payment; (b) obtained a total of 357,000 won using a stolen card four times from around that time to August 4, 2017, using the same method as the attached crime list 4; (b) around 23:38 on August 3, 2017, the Defendant acquired a total of 357,00 won using the stolen card; and (c) obtained the Defendant’s property gains from the cross-dissuries located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, using the Defendant’s ITES.CO account; and (d) obtained the Defendant’s credit card bank’s credit card information in the same manner as the above paragraph 1(b) and entered the same in the total of KRW 1351381,14,1384,81,27.

2. Summary of the defendant and defense counsel;

In order to use the contents, etc. stored in the seized mobile phone (Evidence No. 1), seizure procedures for the aforementioned mobile phone should be conducted in addition to the seizure procedures for the mobile phone itself, but the post-verification warrant for seizure and search has been issued. However, the seizure procedures have not been conducted for the contents, etc. stored in the above mobile phone, and the police recognized the Defendant’s fingerprints and collected the contents, etc. thereof. The contents, etc. stored in the above mobile phone are evidence acquired through illegal procedures and inadmissible as evidence. Accordingly, the victims’ statements, confessions, etc. collected based thereon are inadmissible as secondary evidence.

In addition, although two SDRs (No. 2) stored a sex-related video file that has been placed on Cloud were seized in a way that the defendant voluntarily produced, this constitutes an extension of the aforementioned illegal procedure, and it was made without being properly notified of the meaning of voluntary submission, the above SDRs are inadmissible.

Ultimately, this part of the facts charged should be pronounced not guilty because it falls under the case where there is no proof of criminal facts.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

According to the evidence duly admitted by this Court, the following facts are acknowledged.

① On July 25, 2017, H filed a complaint with the Defendant for rape and larceny, and expressed the Defendant’s damage incurred by the police, and on August 19, 2017, upon undergoing a two-lane investigation by the police, H stated that the Defendant himself/herself was his/her cell phone camera in the hotel room.

② At around 18:50 on August 24, 2017, a judicial police officer arrested the Defendant with a warrant of arrest against H for quasi-rape and theft (hereinafter referred to as “instant mobile phone”) and without a warrant, seized records and the list of seizure records of the Defendant’s mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as “instant mobile phone”). ③ On August 25, 2017, the judicial police officer searched the instant mobile phone and recorded the list of seizure records and the list of seizure records of the instant digital information (hereinafter referred to as “sexually related video”) along with N, C, D, and E’s respective resident registration certificates and their respective sexual relation pictures, F, G’s resident registration certificates (hereinafter referred to as “the instant digital information”), and the files of each of the instant video and sexual relation video files were found to be “the instant digital information,” and the files of the instant digital information were bound to be files of the investigation records (hereinafter referred to as evidence files).

④ On August 27, 2017, a judicial police officer issued a warrant of ex post facto search, seizure and verification of the instant mobile phone (hereinafter referred to as the “instant warrant”) to the effect that: (a) the crime was committed by this court; (b) the crime was quasi-rape and theft suspicion against H; and (c) the reason for urgent search, seizure and verification was search of a suspect’s body at the search site; and (d) the seizure of one cellular phone which was contained in the suspect’s seat; and (c) the said crime’s video and additional criminal video are additionally confirmed and need to be continuously seized.

⑤ A judicial police officer was given a statement related to whether the aforesaid seven women (H and N filed a complaint with the Defendant and had already been investigated about H and N) had been raped by the Defendant in the electronic information of this case. In this process, the judicial police officer presented to the above women a photograph or sexually related video of the electronic information of this case, which was bound into investigation records (Evidence Nos. 53, 5, 65, 62, 64, 67, 68, 69, 69, 72, 76, 77, 78), and the sexually related video of D and E stored in CD and bound it into investigation records (Evidence No. 56, 655).

(6) On September 4, 2017, after the instant case was forwarded to the prosecution, the Defendant signed and sealed on the submission of information storage media and the confirmation document as to whether the Defendant had already observed the procedure, such as the submission, witness, etc. of the instant mobile phone. The said confirmation document contains the content that the Defendant would not participate in the process of securing evidence, such as Hadrida for the instant mobile phone, searching for electronic information, copying, printing out, etc.

① The Prosecutor extracted and stored N, D, and E’s sexually related video files (total 11 files) from the instant mobile phone, and delivered the list of the relevant digital information to the Defendant on September 20, 2017. Meanwhile, H and C’s sexually related video files (total 10 files) were not extracted from the instant mobile phone. As the prosecutor’s office did not extract from the instant mobile phone, he/she taken a reproduction of the said video from the Defendant’s cell phone in a separate digital camera after reproducing the said video from the instant mobile phone, among the Defendant, and then received a voluntary submission from the Defendant. However, the effect of the instant warrant extends not only to the instant mobile phone itself, but also to the instant mobile phone, as well as to the instant digital information stored in the instant mobile phone, and thus, it is reasonable to accept the instant warrant’s assertion that the digital information is subject to seizure, based on the evidence related to the instant criminal facts, as stated in the instant warrant.

C. Scope of electronic information that affects the warrant of this case;

1) In light of the due process of law and the spirit of warrant requirement to be implemented under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, a judge’s text and text to specify “goods to be seized” shall be strictly interpreted, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret the contents unfavorable to the persons to be seized, etc. without permission. However, the subject of seizure shall not be limited to the goods directly related to the criminal facts of the search and seizure warrant itself, but the seizure may be conducted to the extent that there are considerable grounds to suspect that the criminal facts of the search and seizure warrant and the basic facts of the same or the same or similar criminal acts are related to the same crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2649, Jul. 23, 2009).

2) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team, the above facts of recognition, and evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the electronic information of this case is related to the criminal facts stated in the instant warrant and the same or similar criminal acts, and is within the scope of the subject of seizure under the instant warrant.

① The facts constituting the crime stated in the instant warrant constitute rape and larceny with H. Among them, rapes with H constitute an act of rape. Among them, the crime of rape with H is identical to having been committed by the Defendant at an investigative agency, and the Defendant stated that the Defendant himself/herself was a cell phone camera in the hotel room. In light of the fact that the Defendant used drugs, the police officer seized the instant mobile phone after having received the aforementioned statements, and discovered the pictures and sexually related images of H’s resident registration certificate while searching for them. In the process, photographs of N, C, D, and E’s resident registration certificates and pictures of each gender relation with H were also discovered, and in such circumstances, the aforementioned women’s resident registration certificates are likely to have a reasonable ground for suspecting that each of the above women’s resident registration certificates was identical or similar to his/her pictures.

② In the actual crime of rape with H, and the charge of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes against C, D, and E and the F (tentative name) among the facts charged in this part, the method and method of the crime are similar, and each of the above crimes is committed within one month, and the interval of time is considerably close.

(d) Violation of procedures, such as guaranteeing participation rights;

1) Articles 219 and 121 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that “When an investigative agency executes a search and seizure warrant, the person subject to search and seizure or his/her defense counsel may participate in the execution thereof.” In cases where it is impossible to print out or copy a storage device within the scope of the search and seizure process or where it is deemed that there are exceptional circumstances making it considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of search and seizure, and copies, search, and output a storage device or a drids, or a type of digital information already collected (hereinafter referred to as “duplicating”) into an investigative agency office, etc., the warrant principle and due process should be complied with, such as taking appropriate measures to guarantee the opportunity for the party subject to search and seizure or his/her defense counsel to participate in the search and seizure or to prevent the arbitrary reproduction, etc. of digital information irrelevant to the suspected facts, unless such measures are taken, the warrant principle and due process should be complied with. If no such measures are taken, the purport of guaranteeing the participation of the party subject to search and seizure clearly expressed his/her intention not to participate in the procedure.

Even if an investigative agency copied and printed only digital information related to the suspected fact in a storage medium or duplicate, it is not different (see Supreme Court en banc Order 201Mo1839, Jul. 16, 2015).

2) In the instant case, the entire cell phone of the instant digital information was seized. As seen in the foregoing legal doctrine, an investigative agency should comply with the warrant principle and due process, such as guaranteeing the party against whom the digital information was seized or his defense counsel’s opportunity to participate in a series of processes of copying, searching, and printing out the digital information, and taking appropriate measures to prevent the arbitrary reproduction, etc. of the digital information irrelevant to the suspected facts.

However, according to the above facts and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, judicial police officers did not separately confirm the intent of the defendant or his/her defense counsel to participate in the process without the presence of the defendant or his/her defense counsel, and did not issue a detailed list of the electronic information of this case (the prosecutor asserted that the police searched the cell phone of this case using the password which the defendant or his/her parents voluntarily informed on August 24, 2017 on the date of arrest of the defendant and his/her parents, but there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove that the defendant or his/her defense counsel expressed his/her intent to waive the right to participate. 4) It is reasonable to view that the judicial police officer did not comply with due process by searching, copying, and printing the electronic information of this case stored at his/her own cell phone without the right to participate in the seizure of this case without the guarantee of the right to participate in the seizure of this case. Furthermore, in light of the nature and content of the process in which the violation was committed, evidence cannot be admissible without legitimate evidence.

In addition, at the prosecutor's investigation stage, the defendant was informed of the seizure-related procedures and provided with an opportunity to witness, and the submission of "information storage media and the confirmation of whether the defendant will not participate in the process of securing evidence" was submitted, and the electronic information list was finally issued, and even if the defendant received voluntary submission with respect to part of sexually related video images stored in the cell phone of this case, the above procedure was completed after the search and seizure procedure based on the warrant of this case was completed through the printing out of the reproduction of the electronic information of this case, and the investigation of suspect, witness, etc. was conducted. Thus, the defect of the above procedure violation cannot be seen as cured.

E. Determination on the admissibility of secondary evidence

1) Evidence collected in breach of the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, as well as evidence

Based on the evidence acquired, the secondary evidence does not constitute a case where a criminal investigation agency’s procedural violation infringes on the substantive substance of due process, but rather, it cannot be deemed as evidence of conviction in principle, as it did not comply with the lawful procedure established to guarantee fundamental human rights. However, when final determination of admissibility of seized materials is made, all circumstances related to a procedural violation committed by an investigation agency in the course of evidence collection, namely, the purport of the procedural provision and its content and degree of evasion, specific course and degree of violation, degree of infringement, relation between the right to protect and the defendant, degree of causation between procedural violation and the collection of evidence, and awareness and intent of the investigation agency, etc. Furthermore, the exclusion of admissibility of evidence does not constitute a case where the investigation agency’s procedural violation infringes on the substantive substance of due process, and rather, it is deemed that the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act have resulted in a violation of the purpose of realizing criminal justice by establishing the procedural provisions related to criminal procedure, and thus, can be used as evidence of conviction. This also applies to the second 2010 Supreme Court en banc Decision 201001 evidence collection and evidence.

Meanwhile, in a case where an investigative agency returns separate evidence to a person subject to seizure and seizes it again after voluntary production, the causal relationship between the first procedural violation that has seized the evidence and the final collection of evidence may be deemed to have been severed. However, in the course of submitting it again after return, the seizure may substantially be conducted under the pretext of voluntary production in accordance with the superior position of the investigative agency. As such, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving the voluntariness in submission to the extent that it may exclude reasonable doubt, and where it cannot be deemed that it has been voluntarily submitted, the admissibility of evidence may not be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11233, Mar. 10,

2) In light of the above legal principles, the output or reproduction of the electronic information of this case (Evidence Nos. 46, 53, 55, 56, 62, 64, 65, 67, 68, 69, 72, 76, 77, 78, and 150) and relevant documents (Evidence Nos. 39, 40, 41, 45, 45, 137, 149, 160, 162 through 166, 188, 189, 195 through 201 of the evidence list) are all indivisible or modified, which is illegally collected evidence, and thus, the admissibility thereof shall be denied as evidence.

As seen earlier, even if the investigation agency provided the defendant with an opportunity to participate in the execution of the warrant of this case at the prosecution investigation stage, and even if the investigation agency was voluntarily submitted the SDR of this case from the defendant, it is difficult to view that the prosecutor proven the defendant's voluntary submission of the SDR of this case to the extent that the prosecutor could exclude a reasonable doubt. Rather, the defendant merely appears to have formally gone through the above procedure without properly being informed of the illegality of the collection of evidence of this case and the legal meaning and effect of the voluntary submission of the electronic information of this case (the prosecutor explained to the defendant about the illegality of the collection of evidence of this case, its effects, the meaning and meaning of voluntary submission, and the disadvantage of the defendant, etc., of this case, there is no evidence to verify whether the defendant had understood the electronic information of this case at the time of the investigation, and it is difficult to view that there was a causal relation between the violation of the first procedure and the prosecutor's evidence collection or objection. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant already discovered the electronic information of this case and submitted it to the police investigation.

3) Next, each police statement (Evidence 50, 57, 70, 73, 79) about the witness G (tentative name), D, E, F (tentative name), C, and G (tentative name) in the third trial records, with respect to the statements submitted by the above victims to investigative agencies (Evidence 52, 54, 58, 60, 61, 63, 75, 70, 80, 106, 109) and related investigation reports (Evidence 47, 79, 136, 145, 151, 156, 159, 193) were collected, and the police did not appear to have obtained evidence of this case from each of the above victims, and thus, it was reasonable to view that the evidence of this case was collected based on the personal information of this case and the evidence of this case were collected. Accordingly, the police did not appear to have obtained any unlawful evidence of this case from each of the above victims.

4) Finally, among the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant against the prosecutor (3rd) in accordance with each of the facts charged in this part, I will examine the statement statement(Evidence No. 117) and related investigation report(Evidence No. 146, 196) in accordance with each of the facts charged in this part, and the defendant's digital information in this case in the prosecutor's

Inasmuch as it appears that the causal relationship with the electronic information of this case cannot be deemed as dilution or cut off, it is reasonable to deny admissibility of evidence, since it cannot be deemed that the causal relationship with the electronic information of this case was dissolved or cut off as the digital information of this case was presented from the police investigation without having been sufficiently explained or known.

5) On the other hand, the defendant made a statement in this part of the facts charged to the effect that all other crimes except for the crimes committed against the victim G (a name) among these facts charged (the 10th day of the defendant's examination record). The defendant voluntarily made the above statements in a state that he was notified of the right to refuse to make a statement in an open court and provided sufficient assistance to counsel and sufficiently understood the illegality of collecting evidence. As such, the causal relationship with the electronic information of this case is dilution or cut off and its admissibility can be recognized as evidence. However, if the confession of the defendant is the only evidence unfavorable to the defendant, the confession cannot be taken as a steam for conviction (Article 310 of the Criminal Procedure Act). The remaining evidence except the above evidence is insufficient as evidence to support the confession of the defendant, and there is no other reinforced evidence.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting a crime, and thus, it is decided as per Disposition with the decision of not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

Judges Park Jong-ro

Judges Park Jae-gu

In this case, the confessions made by the defendant in the prosecutor are examined as follows: (10 pages of the transcript of the defendant examination against the defendant).

A statement to the effect that the admissibility of evidence is denied as a secondary evidence of illegally collected evidence, but the defendant's right to refuse to make a statement in the open court.

Statements voluntarily made in a state where he/she has been notified of his/her defense counsel's sufficient assistance and sufficiently understood the illegality of evidence collection.

the causal relationship with the illegally collected evidence can be used as evidence of conviction because the causal relationship with the illegally collected evidence is dissolved or cut off.

2) Two (No. 2) SDRs seized are voluntarily produced by the Defendant and seized, but in substance, are owned by an investigative agency.

not separately sentenced to confiscation because it is not subject to confiscation. In addition, each of the offenses of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) shall be used.

Since the value of a new drug cannot be specified, this part of the collection shall not be sentenced.

3) According to the first video recording of the police interrogation of the defendant, the defense counsel of the defendant in the process of inspecting the protocol around August 25, 2017, 13:07

G. The Defendant’s defense counsel divided the following conversations with the police officer, and the Defendant’s defense counsel participates in the process of copying and printing electronic information of this case by the police officer.

I seem to have not been able to do.

Defense Counsel: A police officer, who is frighten to forward to the near: A police officer, is not a transfer, but a warrant of detention is frightened. The defense counsel is not a transfer, but a warrant of detention is frightened. The request for a warrant of detention: A police officer: A police officer: A police officer: the request for a warrant of detention is not a police officer: a police officer: a police officer, who is frightened to the inside of the day. (b) The police officer: a large number of cell phoness are found at this time, so that a large number of cell phoness are found, so it is difficult to confirm the low-sick.It is the counsel: A police officer: a police officer; a lawyer; a lawyer; a file is dnicked; a video related to the instant case is dynas, dynas? The police officer; and a police officer.

4) The investigation report (No. 1118 pages of investigation records) prepared by the police contains a password of this advance cell phone number, and the defendant raises it to the police.

There seems to have been an objection to the right to participate in the investigation process from the beginning of the investigation, but such objection was not raised by the defense counsel appointed from the beginning of the investigation.

It is difficult to view that the defendant renounced his right to participate solely on the sole basis.

5) The prosecutor, separate from the seized mobile phone of the instant case, shall conduct an investigation into the said victims by means of communications confirmation inquiries and replies.

Since the statements, etc. of the above victims were admissible independently, the police argued that they have independent admissibility, but the personal information in the electronic information of this case is confirmed by the police.

It appears that only the victims to be subject to the request for communications data and that damage is verified (Article 225, 271, 272 of the Investigation Record), particularly private

It is not possible to find that the data to confirm additional crimes were conducted after examining the entire details of the phone phone calls.

If the personal information of the above victims was not verified, it can be readily concluded that an investigation was conducted against the above victims.

shall not be effective.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.