(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

(c) Child Welfare violation (child abandonment or neglect);

2. A. (b) B (98 - 1)

From September 2017, the Defendants started sexual intercourse, and around January 2018, Defendant A met another male who was admitted to the Juvenile Reformatory between Defendant B and Defendant B in the Juvenile Reformatory between Korea and Korea, and Defendant B went to death again with Defendant B after having been released from the Province.

around May 2018, the Defendants came to know of the fact that Defendant A was pregnant four months, and at the time, Defendant A’s pregnant fetus was suspected of whether Defendant B was her friendly child, but Defendant B decided to raise the victim together with Defendant A regardless of whether Defendant B was her her son or not, and two persons were living together.

around October 30, 2018, Defendant A given birth to the victim D (n). The Defendants reported the birth of the victim as her son on November 6, 2018. Defendant A’s parent house in the parent house in the Defendant’s parent house in Korea with the victim. On March 4, 2019, Defendant A, from the parent house of the Defendants to the ○○ apartment ○○○○, located in Incheon Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

From November 2018, Defendant B worked at the family of satisfaction, etc., Defendant B punished living expenses, and Defendant A raised the victim at the family of mixed children mainly.

On March 4, 2019, the Defendants purchased Mari from Abean Ski on March 19, 2019, and kid by Defendant A’s parents. On March 19, 2019, the Defendants purchased Mari from Abean Ski (ve months after birth) together with the victims.

After the division of the Defendants, the Defendants were seriously dissatisfied with the frequent external gambling and complex relationship with Defendant B, the suspicion and gathering of Defendant A’s Defendant B’s DefendantB, and the right and dissatisfaction due to the care of the victim by negligence. In early May 2019, the relationship between the Defendants becomes worse, and the number of Defendant B’s cases of going out or going to go to the outside by only the victim is increasing. As such, the Defendant A, who was in turn, had a frienced with only the victim’s house, was forced to escape from the responsibility of bringing the victim to the other party.

1. Defendant B’s violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment);

No person shall abandon a child under his/her protection and supervision, or neglect the basic protection, rearing, medical treatment and education, including food, clothing and shelter.

On May 17, 2019: at around 00, the Defendant was living at the entrance of the above ○○ apartment house ○○○○, the Defendant’s parents of the Defendant’s residence, leaving the victim into the baby room at the entrance of the front floor of the first floor, and the Defendant stated, “I would like to see the victim in front of the above ○ apartment ○○ apartment ○○○, the Defendant’s parents by telephone, so I would like to see the victim in front of the house because he was in the present place.” On the other hand, I would like to care the victim until 02:30 on the same day with the knowledge of the fact that the victim was neglected. The Defendant continued to change the front door password and did not inform the changed password after going through the house, and was unable to enter the house: from 05:00 to 09:0 on the same day, the Defendant was born with the victim in front of the above ○ apartment ○○○.

Accordingly, the defendant abandons and abandons the victim.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

(a) homicide;

around May 2, 2019, the Defendants: (a) claimed that Defendant B went to Gmaart H in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon around 3:00, and (b) claimed that Defendant B her f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f g f g f f f f f g g f f g f f g f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f f.

Nevertheless, Defendant B is doubtful that the victim is not his relative, and the damage is inflicted on Defendant B.

The duty of protection and support to a person goes beyond the Defendant A, and the Defendant A took action without any responsibility of such Defendant B and exceeded the duty of protection and support to the victim. As such, the Defendants did not return home to any one person without neglecting the victim’s duty at the house with 2 pets.

As a result, the pet dog 2 marith has stored the excreta at the inside and outside of the inside and outside of the house and has returned to the method of handling excreta. The waste contained in the waste bag with 100 liter capacity or other miscellaneous sludge are asked inside the garbage bag, and the inside bank where the victim was the victim was in a very low and unclean state so as to make it difficult for the Defendants to do so. Nevertheless, Defendant B was in May 2019. < Amended by Act No. 1457, May 2019>

23. Supwup, Supwup on the 24th of the same month, and on the 25th of the same month, he stay for about one hour after having come to the house, and he was drinking only to the victim, and Defendant A had frighted on May 23, 2019. < Amended by Act No. 1447, May 23, 2019>

02:0: 22:00 on the same day, around 22:18:0 on the same month, around 24:00 on the same month, and around 25:07:00 on the same month, the Defendant was drinking only to the injured party. The Defendants left the victim at a low time and neglected in an influent house as above.

At around 17:00 on May 26, 2019, Defendant A entered the house, and the pets were flickly flicked by flicking the victim’s face, hair, arms, legs, etc., and explained such circumstances to Defendant B by communicating the victim to Defendant B, and in doing so, Defendant B would be able to dispose of the victim’s ski in Ski in Ski in Ski. Accordingly, Defendant B did not know the victim’s flick. Then, Defendant B was flickly flick, and Defendant B did not know that Defendant B was not flicking the victim. Do not enter the house even if the victim was flickly flicked or flicked, etc., from the time when the victim was flick to the time when the victim was flick or flicked in Incheon City. 1 to the time when the victim was flick or flick in Incheon.

Defendant B was aware of the following facts: around May 26, 2019: (a) around 2019, the victim took care of her face and arms to Huban Ski; (b) around May 27, 2019, Defendant A went through Defendant A’s text messages, pages, and location tracking application, and did not enter the house with her friendship and alcohol, and there was no thought to enter the house any longer than 5: (c) Defendant B entered the 3rd of May 27, 2019; (d) Defendant B did not know that the victim died of 10 p.m. from 30 p.m. to 10 p.m. 20 p.m. 9 p.m., Defendant B’s 10 p.m. 20 p.m., after entering the residence of the 20 p.m., Defendant B’s 1 and 5 p.m., 200 p.m., after leaving the body of 10 p.m.

Ultimately, even though the Defendants: (a) returned home after May 26, 2019, and recognized the fact that no one would look at the victim; (b) and that the victim could die therefrom, the Defendants left the house where the victim was 2 maths of the pet dog for about five days from that time, thereby leaving the victim entirely neglected; (c) thereby, the Defendants died due to a high level of escape from May 30, 2019 to May 16, 2019.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim.

(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

Defendant B found a victim who died in the above residence on May 31, 2019: around 12: around 16, 2019; Defendant B did not take measures such as reporting to the police even though the victim was aware of the death of the victim at around 22:0 on the same day.

Furthermore, Defendant B, around 00 on June 18, 2019: around 00, on the ground that Defendant A did not see the body of the victim, moved the body of the victim to a paper box, and then laid the box back in front of the front box. At around 21:00 on the same day, Defendant A entered the house with Defendant B, and opened the box in front of the front box. At around 21:0, Defendant B, along with Defendant B, heard the speech that the body of the victim is contained in the box, and hereinafter “in front of the box,” he took place only his articles such as “in front of the box,” along with Defendant B.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to leave the body of the victim by neglecting the body of the victim even though they have a duty to dispose of the body of the victim according to the appropriate funeral procedures.

Summary of Evidence

【Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Crime of Abandonment or Omission of Child)】

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of Defendant A by the prosecution (Evidence No. 125 of the evidence list);

1. Each police statement with regard to I (Evidence No. 35);

1. A report on internal investigation (on-site statement by neighboring residents), photographs of processing 112 reports, and treatment tables (the sequence 13 through 15 of evidence lists);

【Murder and Abandonment of Death】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and K;

1. Each suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants (Evidence Nos. 124, 125, 132, 133, 160, 170, 174, 177)

1. Statement made by each prosecutor for reference to the prosecution against L and M (Evidence Nos 142, 143);

1. Each police statement on N,O, P, and Q (Evidence No. 16,83 - 85 of the evidence list);

1. A statement of R (the sequence 179 No. 179 of the evidence list);

1. A fire-proof report (the analysis of CCTV video images of ○ apartment), 5.31. 31. 6.

1. Video recording of ○○ apartment (Evidence Nos. 43 through 45 of the evidence list);

1. 내사보고 ( 참고인 J 상대 할퀸 상처가 있는 피해자 사진 확인 ), 변사자 상처 부위 사진 ( 증거목록 순번 48, 49 )

1. Investigation report (the attachment of suspect A PP notices, the suspect B's attempt to sell them with cooling and air conditioners, and 2019.

5. Confirmation of access to ○ apartment 27. (Evidence Nos. 131, 168 of the evidence list)

1. Requests for analysis of each digital evidence, internal investigation report (verification of the contents of the message made to the accused mobile phone), investigation report (Adjustment of the message made to the accused mobile phone suspects) and message among suspects [number 56, 58, 60, 91, 93, 94 of the evidence list];

1. Photographs of a changeed site (the sequence 8 of evidence list);

1. An appraisal report on medical science or an appraisal report (genetic appraisal report);

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act (the homicide and the choice of limited imprisonment) and Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of abandonment of the dead body);

(b) Defendant B: Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 17 subparag. 6 of the same Act (the abandonment and neglect of a child, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 250(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of murder and the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of abandonment of a dead body)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act / [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with severe punishment (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above two crimes)]

(b) Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than the punishment (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment of the above three crimes)

1. Illegal punishment;

Defendant A: Determination on the Defendants and defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act; Articles 4(2) and 2(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes

1. Summary of the assertion

A. In relation to the fact of murder, the Defendants neglected the victim’s neglect, and thereby, acknowledged the fact that the victim died. However, the Defendants did not anticipate the victim’s death and did not intend the death, and thus did not intend to do so, there was no intention to commit murder.

B. With respect to the abandonment of the body, on May 31, 2019, the Defendants knew of the death of the victim and did not specify how to hold funeral proceedings in a very play, and did not allow the Defendants to bury the body in a mountain for the purpose of abandoning the body of the victim.

2. Legal doctrine

A. A crime related to murder by omission may also be realized by omission, which does not prevent the occurrence of a result, in general, at the time of the commission of an active act. Article 18 of the Criminal Act provides, “When a person who, having a duty to prevent the occurrence of danger, or having caused the occurrence of danger, does not prevent the occurrence of danger, that person shall be punished according to the result of the occurrence.”

In the case of the so-called crime of omission, which generally commits a crime committed by omission, such as murder, the subject of the legal interest protected by the law is not capable of responding to the threat of infringement on the legal interest, and there is a legal duty to act to protect the legal interest from the threat of infringement. In addition, it is necessary for the omission to control the situation that causes infringement on the legal interest from the threat of infringement, and to prevent the occurrence of infringement on the legal interest caused by the omission from the performance of the duty to act in such a protective position, and it can be assessed as an act of crime because the infringement on the legal interest caused by the omission has the equivalent value to

The intent of a person liable to act is not necessarily required to have an intent to commit a crime of omission. It is sufficient that a person obligated to act by legal means to prevent the occurrence of a consequence by performing his/her duty to act is aware that he/she could easily prevent the occurrence of the consequence by performing his/her duty, and that he/she would not perform his/her duty by permitting and neglecting the occurrence of the result. The prediction or recognition of the person liable to act may be recognized as willful negligence, not only in conclusive cases but also in an uncertain case. In such a case, not only depends on the statement made by the person liable to act, but also on the ground of the duty to act, the form and risk of infringement of legal interests, the degree of control over the situation of infringement of legal interests of the person liable to act, the content and ease of the required duty to act, the motive and background leading up to omission, the correlation between the type of omission and the result, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do6809, Nov. 12, 2015).

B. A crime of abandonment related to the abandonment of a dead body is established in a case where a person who is obligated to perform a funeral or care and custody for the dead (the deceased)’s religious sentiment or religious peace is deemed to be protected under the law, contract, or cooking’s legal interest, and a person who is not obligated to do so leaves it alone or leaves it alone without following religious and social custom (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do51 delivered on March 10, 1998).

3. Determination

A. We first examine whether the Defendants neglected the victim to commit murder before determining whether it was intentional or not. The victim did not have the legal capacity to protect the victim as a person with parental authority at the time of his death. The Defendants, as a person with parental authority at the time of his death, have the legal obligation to protect and nurture the victim. Measures to be taken by the Defendants to protect and prevent the victim’s death, are strawing victims, and do not need to have special capacity to protect the victim as a parent, and the result of death was easily prevented. Even if the Defendants were to request their parents or descendants to help the victim early, they could not die if they were to have died. Defendant A’s pro-help M in the prosecutor’s office, even if the Defendant did not look at the victim, the Defendants made a statement to the lower court that the Defendants did not directly cause physical harm to the victim, and that the Defendants did not have the right to be thirth of the victim’s body, and that the Defendants did not have any physical harm to the victim, even if they did not have any physical harm to the victim.

Therefore, in a case where the Defendants are admitted to have the intention of murdering for the victim, the establishment of a co-principal can be recognized.

However, as seen earlier, the intention of murder in the crime of omission does not necessarily require the intent of the purpose or planned crime as to the occurrence of the result. It is sufficient to anticipate that the occurrence of the result could be easily prevented by performing the duty of commission, and to recognize that the performance of the duty is not carried out by permitting and neglecting the occurrence of the result, and such recognition may be recognized by intention not only in a conclusive case but also in an uncertain case.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants seems to have caused the death of the victim by leaving the victim alone alone while recognizing the possibility of the death of the victim at least in an indefinite manner and neglecting their responsibilities. Even if the Defendants did not have any intention to have the victim die, it is sufficient to recognize the Defendants’ intentional murder.

B. As to the assertion regarding the abandonment of the dead body

regardless of whether the Defendants attempted to store the body of the victim in mountain, 2019.

5. As long as the body was left alone continuously even though the victim knew of his death in the order of 31, it is clear that the crime of abandonment of the body is established against the Defendants, who have a duty to hold the victim’s funeral or to care and custody the body.

The Defendants made a statement to the effect that May 31, 2019, and on June 1, 2019, the end of the day and June 1, 2019, the time was only the time to file a death report on the ordinary day. However, even if the victims of food were aware of the death, the Defendants continued to remove the dead body to be decomposed, or neglected to embling the dead body, and thus, their religious sentiment was damaged as a social custom against the deceased (victim).

On June 2, 2019: around 40, N, Defendant A’s mother: (a) contacted Defendant A to the effect that the victim was dead; and (b) checked Defendant A’s present door password, etc. to find the victim’s body by entering the Defendants’ residence; and (c) attempted to conceal the victim’s body without reporting the fact of the victim’s death to the police or notifying the victim to the family; (b) in light of the circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants attempted to hold the victim’s funeral, but the procedure was delayed due to the lack of a yellow situation.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: 5 years to 15 years (the maximum amount of imprisonment with prison labor as a result of the aggravation of concurrent offenses is 37 years, or since the Defendant committed murder which is a specific violent crime, it shall not exceed a maximum of 15 years and a short of 7 years);

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment for 5 years to 42 years;

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

A. The sentencing guidelines do not apply to the defendant who is a juvenile under 19 years of age who is the defendant A.

B. Defendant B1) 1 crime (homicide) 2

[Determination of Type] homicide [Type 2] Ordinary homicide [Special Aggravationd homicide] Aggravations: Crun Crun Law

[Scope of Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravated Punishment, 15 years of imprisonment or more to 2 years of imprisonment [Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Child Abandonment)] 2

[Determination of Type] 02. Abandonment and abuse (Type 2) of the General Criteria

[Special Aggravations] Aggravated Aggravations: Where the degree of organic abuse is serious [where the victim abandons the victim at a dangerous place (where the victim abandons the victim within seven months after his/her birth, considering the circumstances that the victim is an infant for seven months after his/her birth)];

[The scope of recommendation field and recommendation range] aggravating area, one year to two years of imprisonment: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 15 years (the upper limit of crimes + the upper limit of crimes 1/2) to not less than 4) imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 15 years (the upper limit of crimes ＋ the upper limit of crimes 1/2) : Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of not less than 15 years to 42 years (in cases where the upper limit of the range of punishment recommended in the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the legal upper limit of punishment, it shall be in accordance with the statutory upper limit of punishment)

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of fifteen years, and seven years for a short term;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for the 20-year Defendants are also examined.

The pain up to the thirst, thirst, so as to prevent water collection for more than three days is serious physical or mental pain beyond the ordinary degree in light of its strength and continuity in time. The Defendants’ criminal method causing the death of the victim is very harsh.

The Defendants, while playing at the bathing beach at the time of the victim’s suffering from maler and thirst and suffering, went beyond their responsibility to protect the victim by simple contact between the Defendants. Furthermore, even after the victim clearly knew of the death of the victim, the victim was living in the abandoned house with his/her body left in the marel, etc., and the victim’s grandparents (i.e., his/her parents) did not appear late after drinking alcohol on funeral ceremony for the victim prepared by his/her parents. The possibility of criticism against the Defendants is very high.

Even if the Defendants are responsible for their personal life, the Defendants were to take care of buckbucks age with their family, and the Defendants were also suspected of being in an environment where they had not been able to have been able to cared by their parents. However, the Defendants’ raising and raising her child is based on the Defendant’s decision that is a combination with the her parents. As the Defendants raised a conflict with each other, and eventually led to a growing conflict between the Defendants, and eventually, they reached the crime of this case, even though they committed the crime of this case, they were unable to care and decentralization with each other, and the Defendants did not have any crime. Therefore, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendants as to the crime of this case.

In light of the record of the cell phone use from Defendant B, which the police seized and analyzed from Defendant B, Defendant B was immediately immediately after the victim’s body was transferred to an abnormal person. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23561, Jun. 1, 2019>

19: At around 47-19: Around 48, 200, Defendant B had access to obscene videos (one-way 'one-way 'Y') and cartoons ('welline') (Evidence Nos. 371); Defendant B had access to the last house from the investigative agency to the investigation agency; Defendant B had no choice but to enter the house. Further, Defendant B had no choice but to know of the situation at the time of the crime before the investigator presented objective evidence, and had no choice but to answer that the investigator did not know about the situation at the time of the crime and had access to the house in order to take a cooling cry, and had no choice but to say that the victim was sleeped by an objective act, and had no choice but to the time of the crime.

In addition, the circumstances that Defendant B was subject to the disposition of juvenile protection case due to several larcenys and violence crimes, and that in 2017 and 2018, Defendant A had the record of being sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to violent crime, special larceny, etc., and two times of suspended sentence of imprisonment. Defendant A, along with the circumstances that Defendant A was a juvenile with no record of punishment, shall determine the sentence as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime,

Limits on Attorney Song-chul

Judges Kim Gin-han

2) The amount of murder without complying with the standards for handling multiple crimes, such as abandonment of dead bodies typically accompanied with murder.

One sentencing factor in the standard of punishment shall be treated as a single sentencing factor (general sentencing factor).