Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a year.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 175 days each included in the penalty.

Defendant 1’s injury to rape, rape, and violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act, and Defendant 3 shall be acquitted.

Although the defendant 3 and his defense counsel did not have committed any crime at all at the time of the original trial, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in finding the facts wrong and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The gist of each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel is that the defendant did not take any action at the first place at the time of the original adjudication and did not threaten the victims in cooperation with Defendant 1. Although he borrowed money from the victims on March 3, 200, he could not be said to have taken money by deceiving the victims unless he had sufficient capacity to repay the money at the time of borrowing, and the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all of the defendants even though he did not have any threat to the victims as stated in subparagraph 3(b) of the judgment, and the summary of each of the grounds for appeal by each of the second points is improper because the court below's punishment against the defendant is too excessive.

First, among the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel, the part concerning facts Nos. 1 and 2.c, and d, and each of the grounds for appeal by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel are collected from Defendant 1 and his defense counsel; the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below; Defendant 2’s statement in the party examination court; Defendant 2’s statement in the second examination protocol of the suspect and the second examination protocol of the defendant 2 prepared by the public prosecutor who was investigated by the party members in the trial court (from No. 528 to No. 3 to 8 of the investigation record); and Defendant 2’s statement in the third examination protocol of the judicial police assistant (from No. 340 of the investigation record No. 340 of the investigation record to the last day). Thus, all of the above Defendants and their defense counsel’s arguments are without merit.

Next, among the grounds for appeal by Defendant 1 and his defense counsel, the part on the second facts at the time of the original adjudication and the grounds for appeal by the Defendant 3 and his defense counsel are examined.

The summary of this part of the facts charged against the above Defendants:

Defendant 1 has established an internal relationship with Co-Defendant 2 and played the role of receiving damages from the debtors of that woman, but he knows that the victim has been causing many damages to Defendant 2, who was not aware of the husband, and has caused him to spread the her to the victim’s emotional distress.

(1) On January 20, 1992, around 20:0, around 20:0, the defendant 2 got off the victim through Defendant 2 before the Central Apartment Complex located in the Namwon-dong, Namwon-si, and the defendant 10:15 on the same day (which appears to be a clerical error at around 20:15) of the same day, the defendant was induced to the entrance way at the Yeongdong-dong located in the Namwon-si, Namwon-si, and the victim's "influor and the relationship between the victim and the defendant 2 is not good if the husband becomes known," and the victim's spelched behind the victim's witness, she was laid off on two occasions, and forced off the victim, and she was raped once by force.

(2) 1992.4.19. 20:00경 전남 구례군 토지면 외곡리 메골산 입구 길 위에서 피고인 2, 3, 피해자와 합께 바람을 쐬러 나왔다가 피고인 2 등에게 피해자와 채무변제 문제로 상의하여 보겠다며 일행들과 헤어져 피고인이 운전하는 승용차에 태워 피해자를 유인한 다음 그 승용차 안에서 피해자의 뺨을 2회 때리고 피해자의 남편에게 돈관계를 폭로하겠다고 합박한 뒤 강제로 하의를 벗겨 1회 강간하고,

(3) On June 192, 1992, around 19:40, the victim's management (name omitted) located in the Namwon-si (Spot Number omitted) (hereinafter "the victim's kneb and Defendant 2") refers to why the victim's knee will open to the public, and as a result, the victim's knees knees knees knes knes knes knes knes knes knes knes kneed into three times, and led the victim's knes knes into one time, leading the victim into a way to commit rape, and thereby, the victim's knebs

Defendant 3, upon introduction by Defendant 2, knew of the above victim, he saw that he flick together with the victim, and knew the drug points of his female to flick the victim to flick the victim to flick the victim's emotional distress.

(1) From January 21, 1992, around 21:00, Defendant 2 changed the number of North Korean Won-gun, North Korean Won-gun, North Chang-gu, South Chang-ri, North Korea, at the same time, and was induced by Defendant 2 to her own car on the way near the south Chang-ri, North Korea, the victim “as he knows that he was faced with Defendant 1, she changed his body,” and she milched behind the victim’s member, she was placed on two occasions, and she raped the victim once again, and the victim was unable to resist on the way near the Agricultural Cooperatives located in the same area on the same day at around 21:40 on the same day.

(2) On January 1, 1992, Defendant 2: (a) on the road near a non-displacement in the territory of the Namwon-gun, Namwon-gun, Namwon-gun; (b) on the one hand, Defendant 2: (c) was flicked and flicked; and (d) was induced by Defendant 2 on his own car, “Finally changed once”; and (d) was flicked on two occasions, and raped once;

(3) On March 13, 1992, around 20:30 on March 13, 1992, the victim's management (name omitted) located in the Namwon-si (Spot Number omitted) was knife with knife knife in the victim's item of the victim's body, caused the victim to knife knife knife his body in the third place, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife in the room

On the other hand, the above Defendants, from the investigative agency to the trial court, denied the crime that they did not have any fact of committing the crime at all, at the time and place indicated in the above facts charged.

However, as evidence consistent with the above facts charged, the victim's statement in the court below and the trial court of the court below, the statement in the trial court of the victim's personal witness, each statement in the trial court of the public prosecutor and the court of the case of the victim's personal witness, each statement in the prosecutor's and the court of the case of the defendant 2, the above defendants and the defendant 2 in each protocol of examination of the victim's suspect against the defendant 2, each statement in the prosecutor's and the court of judicial police officer's protocol of examination of the victim, the inspection record, photographs and the statement of the victim, the statement of the victim's statement

First, we examine the credibility of the above evidence, the contents of which are the victim's statement.

With respect to a person who first rapes a female (the first statement of the police) on January 11, 192, the victim made a statement to the effect that he was raped with Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 was raped with Defendant 1 during the same month (Chapter 47 of the Investigation Records), and that when he was subject to the next investigation (the second statement of the police), the victim’s statement to the effect that he first raped with Defendant 3 on January 1, 1992 (the second statement of the police officer), he reconvened the statement that he had been raped with Defendant 1 on January 1, 1992 (Chapter 187 of the Investigation Records), and then reconvened the statement to the effect that he had no consistency with the first statement to the effect that he was raped with the victim, barring any special circumstance, it would be extremely unusual that he was aware that the victim was raped with the victim’s first statement to the effect that the victim was raped with the victim’s first statement to the above part of the charges.

Furthermore, I first examine the statement about Defendant 1’s injury from rape and rape.

피해자는 경찰 제1회 진술시에, 자신은, "1992.1.11. 20:00경 피고인 2이 바람이나 쐬러 가자고 연락을 하여 집 밖으로 나가 보니 차가 2대 있어 자기는 피고인 1의 차에 타고 피고인 2는 피고인 1 친구(경찰 제2회 진술시에 피고인 3이라고 이름을 밝혔다)의 차에 타고 가다가 피고인 2이 탄 차는 시내로 들어가고 피고인 1의 차는 남원산성쪽으로 가다가 그 부근 공터에 이르러 피고인 1이 차를 세운 뒤 피해자를 강간하였다"고 진술하고(수사기록 제40장, 제41장), "1992.4.19.에는 피고인 2의 제의로 쌍계사에 놀러 가기로 하여 자기는 피고인 1의 차에 타고 피고인 2는 피고인 3의 차를 타고 쌍계사에 갔다가 차가 밀려들어가지 못하고 그 입구에서 되돌아오는 길에 피고인 1이 차를 도로 우측에 정차하여 놓고 피해자를 강간하였는데 당시 피고인 3의 차는 먼저 가 버렸다"고 진술하고(수사기록 제42, 제43장), "1992.6.15.경 19:40경에는 피고인 1이 피해자의 가게에 들어와 그녀에게 위 공소사실 기재와 같이 폭행을 한 뒤 멱살을 잡고 방으로 끌고 가 강간을 하였다"고 진술하였다(수사기록 제42, 제43장).

However, with respect to the reasons that the victim got out of his two vehicles, the victim did not give any explanation at the first time to the police, and the second statement made by the defendant 2 at the time of the second statement made by the police, the victim 2 at the time he took up the money from the defendant 1 to the victim 45 million won, and the victim took up the money from the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 4 at the time of the second statement made by the police (the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of rape, the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 4 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of rape (the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of rape, the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the time of the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the second statement made by the defendant 1 at the second.

뿐만 아니라 사법경찰관 작성의 검증조서의 기재와 이에 편철되어 있는 사진의 영상(수사기록 제389장)에 의하면 피고인 1이 피해자를 처음 강간하였다는 산성공원 입구 노상은 인가로부터 그리 멀리 떨어지지도 아니하고 지나가는 차량에서도 쉽게 눈에 띄는 곳으로 보여져 과연 그러한 곳에서 깊은 밤도 아닌 20:15경의 시각에 강간을 할 수 있는 것인지 의문스럽고, 남자로부터 차안에서 첫번째 강간을 당한 바 있는 피해자가 자기를 강간한 범인의 차를 다시 나란히 타고 첫번째 강간 당시와 똑같은 일행과 함께 먼 곳으로 놀러 나왔다가 다시 그 범인의 차안에 단둘이 남게 된 뒤에 두 번째 강간을 당한다는 것도 쉽게 납득하기 어려우며, 위 검증조서의 기재와 이에 편철되어 있는 사진의 영상(수사기록 제393장, 제395장)에 의하면 피해자가 세번째 강간을 당하였다는 장소인 피해자의 가게는 대로변에 접하여 통행인이 많고 야간에도 가로등과 상가의 네온사인 불빛으로 시계에 지장이 없는 상가 밀집지역에 위치하고 있고 그 출입문도 밖에서 안이 훤히 들여다보이는 유리창으로 되어있는 사실이 인정되는 데다가 그 범행시각이 그리 늦지 않은 여름날의 19:40경임을 감안하여 볼 때 위 피고인이 과연 그러한 곳에서 그러한 시각에 피해자에게 위 공소사실 기재와 같은 폭행을 가하면서 피해자를 강간할 수 있겠는지 납득하기 어려우며, 한편 원심 제1회 기일에 법정에서 한 피고인 1의 진술(공판기록 제109장, 제110장)과 원심증인 유영욱의 진술, 공판기록에 편철되어 있는 피고인 1과 피고인 2의 각 전화사용내역서(공판기록 제280장, 제287장) 및 수사기록에 편철된 1992.7.2.자 수사보고서(수사기록 제118장)와 이에 첨부된 1992.4.19.자 피해자의 집 전화사용내역서(수사기록 제132장)의 각 기재를 모아 보면 피해자가 두번째로 강간을 당하였다는 1992.4.19. 20:00경을 전후하여 그날 19:27, 19:39, 20:45경 등 3회에 걸쳐 피해자의 집으로부터 피해자의 남편인 공소외 인을 향한 무선전화호출이 있었고 그날 18:06, 19:29경 등 2회에 걸쳐 피고인 2의 집으로부터 피고인 1을 향한 무선전화호출이 있었으며, 피고인 1이 피해자를 세번째로 강간하였다는 1992.6.15. 19:40경을 전후한 그날 19:19, 19:21, 19:47, 19:56경 등 4회에 걸쳐 위 피고인의 차에 설치되어 있던 카폰으로 통화가 이루어진 사실이 인정되는바, 이러한 점에 비추어 보아도 피해자가 과연 피고인 1, 3, 2 등과 함께 쌍계사에 놀러 갔다가 피고인 3, 2와 헤어져 그 부근 노상의 차안에서 그 주장과 같이 피고인 1에게 두번째의 강간을 당하였다거나, 피해자가 그의 가게에 있다가 위 피고인에게 세번째의 강간을 당하였다고 단정하기에는 의심스러운 면이 있다고 할 것이다.

Next, we examine the statements made by the victim about the rape and robbery of Defendant 3.

With respect to the facts of rape, etc. of Defendant 3, on July 4, 1992, the victim made a statement that the victim was raped in agriculture near Sejong Franchis, but the remaining facts of rape or robbery are stated from the police without entering them at all, and the remainder of the facts are stated from the victim's statement that it is difficult to view that there is a reasonable ground to view the remainder of the above facts in this case at the time of preparing a new statement of complaint, the victim's attitude cannot be accepted in this case.

Furthermore, at the time of the first statement of the victim, the victim himself stated 192.1. Of 12:00, he stated 192. The victim's statement 5. The victim's 3rd knife and 191. The victim's 2nd 5th knife and 5th knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif knif k knif k k knife.

However, at the second time of the police statement, the victim stated that "at the time of rape from Defendant 3, the vehicle's interior, etc. was viewed to have a door on the left side of Defendant 3 while leaving the door of the vehicle," and that "at the first time of the inspection conducted by a judicial police officer, women were swelve in front of the agricultural warehouse located in the Southern-gun, the place where rape from Defendant 3 was first made, and then they were raped in the second place near the Southern Swelter, and later, the victim made the second statement that "at the time of rape in the front of the above No. 374, Chapter 375 and Chapter 376 of the investigative record)" and that "at the same time of rape in the front of the above No. 375 of the investigative record, the victim again made the statement that it was consistent with the first 5 of the investigative record, and that it was reconvened by the defendant at the time of rape, and that it was reconvened by the first 4th of the investigative record.

In addition, the victim, who was sexually raped by Defendant 3 according to the initial telephone promise with Defendant 2, was 10 days after he 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 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 sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually.

Meanwhile, according to the court below's testimony of the witness Kim decoration and a written confirmation attached to the investigation records (in Chapter 645 of the investigation records), Defendant 3, who was sexually Rape and took care of the victim in the third place on March 13, 192, was able to recognize the fact that, at least 7 to 20 days, it is ordinarily impossible to have sexual intercourse. Further, it is difficult in light of the empirical rule to say that the above defendant 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 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 rape.

According to the above review, each of the above evidence, the contents of which are the statements of the victim, shall be difficult to believe all of them.

In addition, each part of the images of the records of inspection of evidence prepared by a judicial police officer and the photograph as to the part of the photograph of the crime is insufficient to be admitted as evidence to acknowledge the above part of the facts charged. The image part is obvious by the above protocol itself that the Defendants did not have committed the crime by themselves (Although the part of the above Defendants re-infusing the crime to respond to the harm of the victim, it is difficult to use it as evidence for the part of the above facts charged in light of the attitude of the above Defendants who consistently denied the crime throughout the period before and after the inspection.)

In addition, according to the testimony of a witness at the trial room and the statement of a commissioned reply to the victim prepared in the name of the witness at the highest seat (the investigation record No. 194), it can be acknowledged that the victim suffered an injury from Defendant 1's third part of the charges on July 2, 1992. However, it is difficult to conclude that the above injury was due to Defendant 1's assault at the time of the crime of rape.

Therefore, although the above part of the facts charged against the above defendants should be pronounced not guilty without proof of crime, the judgment of the court below which found the above defendants guilty guilty has committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by admitting the facts. Since the above defendants and their defense counsel's assertion is justified, without examining the remaining grounds for appeal by the defendant 1, the judgment below against the above defendants cannot be reversed.

On the other hand, as to the grounds for appeal of unfair sentencing by Defendant 2 and his defense counsel, the above Defendant was the first offender and agreed upon with some of the victims. In addition, in full view of the aforementioned Defendant’s motive and background leading up to the instant crime, its age and character, family relation, family environment, circumstances after the instant crime, etc., the above Defendant’s punishment against the above Defendant is too unreasonable, and thus, the above Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable.

Therefore, under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the judgment of the court below against the Defendants shall be reversed, and the members of the party shall be decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of each criminal facts and the evidence against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 are identical to that of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 2, and with respect to Defendant 1, the part 2. A (Articles 10 through 6 of the judgment of the court below) and 2.B (this part is the part of the judgment of the court below not guilty in the subsequent part) among the criminal facts column of the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and all of the part concerning the above criminal facts (Articles 5.7 through 10 of the judgment of the court below, Chapters 7 and 7 of the judgment of the court below) are deleted, and the summary of the evidence is deleted from the part of the judgment of the court below as to the above criminal facts (Articles 13 through 10 of the judgment of the court below, Chapters 13 through 7 of the judgment of the court below) in the summary of the evidence column.

(a) The point of intimidation of Defendant 1 and 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court below: Article 2(2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

B. Defendant 1-

(1) No. 2. C. of the judgment: Article 231 of the Criminal Act

(2) The holding that the event of a falsified investigation document is held as follows: Articles 234 and 231 of the Criminal Act

C. Defendant 2-

(1) No. 3. A’s each fraud (the composition of one fraud for each victim): Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the choice of imprisonment with prison labor);

(2) No. 3. B.C. each intimidation: Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act (Optional to Imprisonment)

2.Aggravation for concurrent crimes

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (In the case of Defendant 1, the punishment and the punishment for the crime of uttering of the above investigation document in the holding that the most severe punishment and the punishment for the defendant 1, and the punishment for the defendant 2 and the punishment for the crime of fraud in the holding that the punishment and the punishment for the defendant 2 are the most severe punishment for the defendant 2)

3. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

(2) Of the facts charged in the following case, the above defendant was in violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act against Defendant 1. From February 1992 to June 1 of the same year, "one finger (number omitted) of the victim's knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k knife k knife k.

한편 사법경찰관 작성의 압수조서(수사기록 제56장 이하)의 기재에 의하면, 위 손도끼는 나무자루(길이 37cm)에 도끼날(가로14cm, 세로 10cm) 이 끼워지고 횐색 붕대가 감겨진 소형 도끼이고 위 주머니칼은 칼날(길이 7.3cm)과 칼자루(길이 9.5cm)로 이루어진 일제 소형손칼인 사실을 인정할 수 있는바, 이에 비추어 볼 때 먼저 위 손도끼는 그 종류(명칭)나 형태 자체가 위 법에서 규정하고 있는 도검류에 해당하지 않음이 분명하고, 다음 위 주머니칼은 칼날의 길이가 7.3cm에 불과한 이상 위 법시행령 제4조 제1항의 제1호 내지 제7호(어느 것이나 칼날의 길이 15cm 이상임을 요한다)에는 해당하지 않음이 명백하고 나아가 제8호의 재크나이프나 제9호의 비출나이프에 해당한다고 인정할 아무런 증거도 없으며 또 제10호에 규정된 "그 밖에 흉기로 사용될 위험성이 뚜렷이 있는 도검"에 해당한다고 인정할 아무런 자료도 없다. 위 제10호에서 말하는 "뚜렷한 위험성"이란 그 칼 자체의 외관, 형태, 기능 등에 비추어 제1호 내지 제9호에 규정된 도검류에 준하는 정도로 흉기로 사용될 위험성이 분명히 인정되는 경우를 가리킨다고 해석되는데, 피고인 1의 진술(수사기록 제478장)에 의하면 남원 춘향제 때인 1992.5.10. 19:00경 시청 동료직원들과 함께 경비근무를 서다가 차안에 있는 맥주를 마시기 위한 병따개가 필요하여 시장에서 병따개가 달린 위 칼을 구입한 것이라고 설명하고 있으며 이를 뒤집을 만한 아무런 증거가 없는 만큼, 그러한 정도의 주머니칼 내지 소형손칼의 소지가 위 법에 의하여 원칙적으로 금지된다거나 그 소지에 관하여 위 법이 정한 당국의 허가를 요하는 것이라고는 도저히 볼 수 없기 때문이다.

(3) Therefore, there is no proof of a crime as to each of the above facts charged, and thus, a verdict of innocence is rendered under the latter part of Article 325

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

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)