(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

(c) Special larceny;

(d) Murder;

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(c) C

4. D. D. D.

Attorney G (Defendant B)

Law Firm H, Attorneys I (Defendant C)

Attorney J (Defendant D)

Law Firm K LLC, Attorneys L (Defendant D)

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant C is acquitted.

The defendant B shall each be confiscated by the defendant, one e.g., the e., e., the e., e., the e., the e., the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e.

The seized victim Samsung T&S No. 15 (Evidence No. 16), one test color (Evidence No. 16), one white set (Evidence No. 17), one test color fluoring (Evidence No. 18), one white cell phone (Evidence No. 19), one test color fluoring (Evidence No. 20), and one test color fluoring (Evidence No. 20) shall be returned to the heir of the victim.

1. homicide by Defendant A, B, or C;

Defendant A was in the second year of high school; Defendant B was in the first year of university; Defendant C was in the first year of high school; Defendant D was in the second year of university (Provided, That Defendant A and C retired from high school after the instant crime).

Defendant A became aware of Defendant C in the OSF festival, Defendant B received the introduction of Defendant C through his branch M, and Defendant A and B became aware of each other through the introduction of Defendant C.

Defendant C became aware of Defendant D through the introduction of a friendship around 2011, and Defendant D became aware of the victim’s 0 (19 years of age) through the introduction of a friendship at the Internet Game’s “N” website around March 201, and Defendant A and C became aware of the victim’s 19 years of age through the introduction of Defendant D. Since December 25, 2011, Defendant A and Defendant C became a person who was affiliated with the victim. Defendant D became a person who was affiliated with the victim from January 1, 2012.

From March 2012, Defendant D had Defendant A, a high school student, sent out English and extra language to Defendant A, and Defendant D, a university student, had been in charge of the role of the above Bande and room, such as where Defendant A, C, etc. entered the Internet Bande and the Kakakao Stockholm room and divided almost every day conversations.

Since then, Defendant A, C, and victim et al. were led by Defendant D in the course of operating the Internet broadband, which the victim was able to have been able to run without respecting the opinions of the members, and due to this, there was a minor dispute between Defendant A, C, D and the victim. However, while maintaining the relationship between Defendant D and the victim, the victim did not have a serious verbal dispute or expressed a desire.

Defendant D, on April 1, 2012, became liquidated due to the unilateral decision-making declaration by the victim, and around April 2, 2012, Defendant D, as well as other members of the Defendant A, C, D, and other members, who were dissatisfied with the victim’s independent Bande operation and so on, were dissatisfied with the victim’s complaint on solitary Banbs, etc. in a reading room.

피해자는 피고인 A, C, D 등이 심령현상에 대해 관심이 있고 특히 피고인 D이 이에 심취해 있는 것을 마음에 들어 하지 않았는데, 위와 같이 피고인 들로부터 집단 따돌림을 당한 것을 알게 되자 2012. 4. 7.경부터 4. 24.경까지 피고인들에게 무차별적으로 "괜히 나쁜놈 만들었다고? 어이없어라, 모두가 욕하는 그 버릇이 뭐냐고요 답답씨, 나도 너희처럼 더럽게 참을성 없는 새끼들 싫으니까 꺼져, 씨발 지금 나랑 장난까? 사람하나 반병신 만들어놓고 지들끼리 낄낄대고 있겠지, 너희 잘못잡았어 씨발새끼들아" 등의 욕설문자를 210회에 걸쳐 보냈고, 특히 2012. 4. 24.경에는 피고인 A, C에게 "니네들 사진 인터넷에 올릴거야, 이거하고 이거, 그니까 누가 나 무시하랬냐고, 어머 뭐라고? 사진 올려달라고? 아주 그냥 신상털리는게 재밌나 보구나" 등 소위 '신상털기'를 하겠다는 내용 등의 협박문자를 하루 동안 44회에 걸쳐 집중적으로 보냈다.

As such, on the ground that Defendant A, C, and D were associated with the victim, the victim sent the halthical text to the Defendants, Defendant A, C, and D, and the victim sent the halthical text containing the halthical expression to the Defendants. On the other hand, the victim’s halthythyal text and the halthalthy text to share the halthic text with the content of the halthic text and the halthic text received from the victim in a separate halthys room and to inform each other of the facts that the halthyal text and the halthic text were in common, thereby becoming well aware that the victim sent the halthic text and the halthalthic text to three.

On April 25, 2012, Defendant C sent to Defendant B the victim the word “I want to tear her fluoral and fluoral........” On the same day, Defendant A and C sent the victim’s dormitory address in Gangwon-do where the victim was going to the university, and asked Defendant B to find the victim. In the process of mutual gathering the victim’s danger and injury, Defendant B gradually developed in a serious state, such as asking Defendant B to whether I would die the victim.

At around 17:30 on April 29, 2012, Defendant A and C, who wished to make a compromise, knew that Defendant B promised to talk with the victim at around 18:30 on the 30th of the same month following the following day, that the victim was in error on the following day. Defendant A and C were able to take advantage of the knife knife knife (e.g., cellular phone clife) holding the cell phone clife with Defendant B’s cell phone cliff (e., “the knife would be prepared” with Defendant A, Defendant A would take advantage of the mobile phone cifflife with Defendant B’s cell phone cifflife with the following day, and Defendant A would take advantage of the knife that “the knife would be knife,” Defendant A’s ciffe, and Defendant C would take advantage of the knife with Defendant D’s.

From April 30, 2012, Defendant A, from around 18:30 on April 30, 2012, had her own house located in Qok, Qok, and Defendant C sent its map to the Kakaoxox to enable Defendant B to come to his own seat. Defendant A and C, around 19:30 on the same day, were the victim who was waiting for Defendant A’s house with Defendant D and was waiting for the house of Defendant A and the house of Defendant A, and were shed with Defendant B to take part in murdering the victim in the future of Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul.

While the Defendants were at the scene of the crime with the victim, Defendant D must go together with the victim himself, and in S Station, Defendant D she she faced with the remaining Defendants, and Defendant A, A, B, and C continued to be the place of the crime at around 20:20 on the same day, Defendant A led the victim to the stairs located inside the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Tpark, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul where Defendant A thought to be the place of crime.

Defendant B saw a telephone line and arms that he was prepared in advance at the back of the victim who was sitting down in the stairs, and turned down the part of the victim, and Defendant A her knife with a snife knife (22 centimeters in the entire length, 10 centimeters in the knife length) in front. Defendant C, who was reported up to that time, followed the knife on the back of the stairs from Defendant B upon the request of Defendant B to take out the pipe (40 centimeters in the length) within the wall of Defendant B, which was located on the back of the stairs, but without finding the knife, did not look back around it, and Defendant B her head, etc. of the victim after taking out the knife in front.

Defendant C had a view to preventing other persons from impeding, by stating that two of the above 20 meters away from the scene of the crime “I am the same that there is a son on the lower side.” Defendant A and Defendant B changed the tang knife and the pipe to one another, and Defendant B followed the victim’s chest with the hacker knife with the head and body of the victim several times with the hacker pipe. The Defendants changed the knife with the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

Despite the Defendant C’s proposal that reported the network as above, the witness U only passed through the scene of the crime, and the Defendant A said that the witness “I am or temporarily stop,” and the Defendant B was dead of the victim’s head, etc. with a chain, namely, a telecommunication knife onto the inside and outside of his arms, and the witness B was dead of the victim by a telecommunication knife, etc. in the front of the crime. The witness, who was the witness at the scene of the crime in the park, was at the scene of the crime. The Defendant B said that “I soon complete the crime” and the Defendant B said that “I am the victim’s chest, etc.” was called “I am a knife,” and the Defendant B died of the victim by reconfing the victim’s head, etc. from the knife to the knife.

As such, Defendant A, B, and C conspired to kill the victim.

2. Abandonment of the dead body of the defendant A and B.

Defendant A and B continued to conceal the body of the victim who died and increased as above in the T Park as above, Defendant B moved his head on the side of the bridge and her head to a grass sloped by approximately 5-6 meters far away from the Defendant A, Defendant B confirmed that the victim’s her son was already dead, but Defendant B her her son was flicked so as to fully kill the victim, and Defendant A cut off the victim’s rear her body more than twice in a sloping way, and Defendant B turned out the victim’s body from the inner side of the slope to the bottom of the sloping.

Accordingly, Defendant A and B conspired to abandon the body of the victim.

3. Special larceny by Defendant A, B, and C

Defendant A continued to be accompanied with Defendant C, who is going up to the stairs from the sloped sloping road, and thereafter, Defendant B had a group of sloping paths and the victim’s articles, and Defendant A had a group of objects, and thus, Defendant A had one bitle in the market price, which includes one set of street North Korea and one Hdddr, etc. on the part of stairs.

4. Murder by Defendant D;

As seen above, Defendant D, while setting up an Internet Bande with the victim, became aware of the victim’s complaint as the victim was able to operate the Bande without coordinating the opinions of the members. Defendant D’s proposal led to a relationship between the victim and the victim on January 1, 2012. On April 1, 2012, when the victim was unilaterally notified of the objection from the victim, the victim was bullying with the victim, and the victim was able to receive the tade language from the victim.

피고인 D은 2012. 4. 10.경부터 피고인 A 등에게 "쟤 좀 죽일 수 없냐"고 말 하기 시작했으며, 같은 달 17.경 피고인 A에게 "어이 저 새끼(피해자를 지칭) 죽여도 돼", 4. 24.경 "죽여 그냥, 슬퍼할 이 없으니", "절대 용서 않는다고, 죽어버렸음 좋겠다고", "그 다음에 밟아줘야"라고 말하는 등 A에게 수차례 피해자를 죽이라는 카카오톡 메시지를 보내고, 4, 24. 08:29경 자신의 블로그에 "역겨워, 진심으로 니가 죽었으면 좋겠어"라는 글을 올려 피고인 C 등이 이를 볼 수 있게 하였으며, 4. 26.경 계속하여 피고인 A, C가 있는 대화방에서 "이 모든건 0 때문이다. O OUT", "주술저주가 좋은 점, 물증 안 남음, 증거 없음, 살인해도 주살의 경우엔 웬만해선 안걸리고", "그 놈 죽이고 싶어"라고 말하는 등 피고인 A, C에 대하여 피해자를 살해할 것을 마음먹도록 유도하였다.

At around 17:30 on April 29, 2012, Defendant A and C conspired with Defendant B to kill the victim on April 30, 2012, with the word “I wish to do so because I have been a gift. I want to do so.” On April 30, 2012, Defendant C conspired with Defendant B to do so on April 18:30 on the following day, and Defendant D came to know this through a Kakaothy TV room.

At around April 30, 18:27, Defendant D found Defendant A to be engaged in the English and foreign lessons at the home of the above Defendant A, and then, Defendant A, who is a minor, notified Defendant A of the method to deal with the case where he was asked, such as “I am ..,” and “I am spher, in case I am spher,” and “I am sphere in the clothes, so I am am sphere.,” and Defendant A and C followed to transmit guidance to the Kakaox and make telephone communications so that Defendant B can find it out.

Since then, at around 19:40, Defendant D, C, and A got the victim, and entered the house with Defendant B in front of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and Defendant D were to go to the S Station with the rest of the Defendants.

피고인 D은 나머지 피고인들과 헤어진 직후인 같은 날 19:50경 집으로 돌아가던 중 피해자를 데리고 범행 장소인 위 T공원으로 이동하고 있는 피고인 C, A에게 카카오톡 대화방을 통해 "일처리 잘해라, 그리고 지갑 나오면 반띵하자"라는 문자를 보내고, 피고인 C, A은 피고인 B에게 위 카카오톡 내용을 보여주었으며, 이후 피고인 A, B, C는 위 제1항과 같이 피해자를 살해하였다.

As such, Defendant D aided and aided the murder in such a way that Defendant A, B, and C kills the victim by means of mental assistance, such as strengthening the resolution.

Summary of Evidence

【Each of the facts listed in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 at the market】

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, and C

1. Legal statement of witness V;

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the prosecution about Defendant B, Nos. 1, 2, 2, 3, and 4 of the suspect suspect interrogation protocol for the suspect A;

1. Entry of C in part of the interrogation protocol of each prosecutor's office twice and twice concerning C;

1. Each police statement of U and W;

1. Each protocol of seizure (fields, pages 475, 477 of the investigation records), each list of seizure (round 476, 478 pages, 532 pages, 532 of the investigation records), and records of seizure (Submission of such records);

1. An investigation report (Attachment to the data, such as the message stored in the cell phone of a suspect A), a report on an investigation (related to the Stockholm content of the cell phone used by a suspect C), a report on an investigation ( restoration, etc. of the contents of conversations, such as the cell phone text messages and Kakaoo, etc. of the suspect A), a report on an investigation (Attachment to the contents of conversations between a suspect A and a victim text message data), a report on an investigation (Attachment to the contents of Kakaook dialogue in the suspect C), a report on an investigation (Attachment to the contents of conversation in the suspect C), a report on an investigation (Attachment to the contents of restoration, such as the cell phone Kakao, Kaoo, text messages, etc.),

1. Investigation report (verification of CCTV for crime prevention in front of the T Park), investigation report (related to the attachment of photographs by suspects who move to a T Park after committing a crime), request for appraisal, and investigation report (Attachment to CCTV screen for a suspect C who was returned during the crime);

1. Investigation report (Attachment of photographs, such as the damaged part of the victim), body autopsy report, investigation report (the result of autopsy), results of autopsy, and verification report;

【Fact 4 at the Time of Sales】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. The first, second, and fourth suspect examination protocol of the defendant A by the prosecution;

1. The first, second, second, and second prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of Defendant D, part of each prosecutor's office's protocol of interrogation of Defendant C

1. An investigation report (Attachment to the data, such as the message stored in the cell phone of a suspect A), a criminal investigation report (related to the Stockholm content of the cell phone used by a suspect C), a criminal investigation report ( restoration, etc. of the contents of conversations, such as the cell phone text messages and car uniforms), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the data on text messages of a suspect A and a victim text messages), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the contents of a suspect C's Kakaook dialogue), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the contents of a suspect A's cell phone conversation), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to the details of restoration, such as the cell phone Kakao Stockholm and letters, etc

Application of Statutes

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

A. Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act of Defendant A and B, and Articles 250(1) and 30(s) of the Criminal Act, Articles 161(1) and 30(s) of the Criminal Act, Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of special larceny)

B. Defendant C

Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act; Articles 331(2) and 331(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny)

C. Defendant D

Articles 250(1) and 32(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aid and mitigation;

Defendant D: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 (Accessories) of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation of juvenile offenses;

Defendant B: Articles 2 and 60(2) of the Juvenile Act, Article 55(1)2 of the Criminal Act (the imprisonment for life shall be mitigated to imprisonment for a limited term of not less than 10 years but not more than 50 years)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as a person selects a punishment for life with the largest punishment for murder, no other punishment shall be imposed);

B. Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes within the scope of proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act with the punishment heavier than the punishment)

(c) Defendant C: Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment as provided for in the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Mitigation of sentence;

Defendant A: Article 59 of the Juvenile Act and Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific Crimes (the punishment of imprisonment for life shall be mitigated by imprisonment for a limited term of 20 years, since he/she was under 18 years of age at the

1. Illegal punishment;

Defendant C: Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act; Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B: Article 48(1)1, 1. Return of the Criminal Act

Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. As to the crime of murder under paragraph (1) of the judgment

A. Summary of the defendant A, B, C, and their defense counsel

Defendant A and B did not conspired in advance to murder the victim on the day of the instant case, but did not result in any contingent murder. Defendant C considered other Defendants’ conversations, such as Kakakaox, etc., as an accident, and there was no prior conspiracy to murder, and the act of execution did not intend to help the other Defendants commit a crime, but did not contribute to the risk of the scarox on the day of the instant case.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the above evidence, the following facts are recognized (a conversation content using the Messenger program, such as mobilephone text, Kakaoox, and Messeno, is indicated as much as possible, except where it is apparent misunderstanding).

가) 피해자와 피고인들 사이에 다툼이 발생하게 된 과정 피고인 D과 연인관계에 있던 피해자는 피고인 C, A과 피고인 D이 사실상 리더 역할을 하는 'X'이라는 인터넷 밴드를 함께 하게 되었는데, 그곳에서 피해자가 리더를 자처하면서 다른 피고인들의 의견을 무시하고 피해자의 일방적인 의사에 따라 보컬이나 건반 연주 등을 위 피고인들에게 맡겨 피고인 A 등은 이에 불만을 품고 피해자와 말다툼을 하게 되었고, 피고인들은 오클트 문화에 대한 대화가 이루어지는 카카오톡 상의 'Y 대화방(이하 'Y 대화방'이라 한다)'에서도 피해자와 함께 대화를 나누었는데 사령 (死靈)이나 주술(呪術)과 같은 이야기를 위 피고인들이 나누면 피해자는 그러한 것이 실제로 존재하는지에 대하여 의문을 제기하여 위 대화방의 멤버인 피고인들 및 V 등과 마찰이 있었다.

Defendant D, on April 1, 2012, became a member of the victim’s association by a unilateral declaration of the victim’s association, and this fact was known to the Defendants and the members of the above room. On April 2, 201 of the same year, Defendants D and the members of the rest room with the victim’s complaint against the victim’s usual attitude, without any explanation from the victim to see the victim, Defendant D and the Defendant C, without any explanation, neglected the victim in a way that they left only the victim by extending the way of dispute between Defendant D and the Defendant C and leaving the room.

이러한 피고인들의 따돌림에 화가 난 피해자는 2012. 4. 7.경부터 같은 해 4. 24.경까지 피고인들에게 무차별적으로 "괜히 나쁜놈 만들었다고? 어이없어라, 모두가 욕하는 그 버릇이 뭐냐고요 답답씨, 나도 너희처럼 더럽게 참을성 없는 새끼들 싫으니까 꺼져, 씨발 지금 나랑 장난까? 사람 하나 반병신 만들어놓고 지들끼리 낄낄대고 있겠지, 너희 잘못잡았어 씨발새끼들아, 내가 왜 욕먹어야 하며 그 행동이 어째서 욕을 먹는지 상세히 설명을 해봐, 나 존나 병신 만들어 놓고 아주 그냥 행복해 죽겠지? 이 상황에도 잠 잘잔다 인간아, 경험? 웃기시네 막 지어내는 말이라서 증거도 없는 주제에, 증거도 없는 놈들이 구라치기는, 쫄리면 뒈지시던가, 너희 때문에 나 병신된거 어쩔 거냐, 그래 그렇게 평생 남 까고 다니면서 살아라, 축생커플아" 등의 욕설문자를 210회에 걸쳐 보냈고, 그 중 피고인 C에게는 "솔직히 네가 한 행동이 이해가 가긴 해ㅋㅋㅋ, 남친 실드쳐주는게 쉽지는 않겠지ㅋㅋ, 근데 어쩌냐, 네 남친이 사과를 안하네ㅋㅋ, 네가 그렇게 계속 그새끼 여친으로 남을 것 같지? 절대 아냐, 그새끼는 지 맘에 안들면 무조건 내치게 되어있어" 등의 피고인 A과 헤어지라는 내용의 문자를 보냈으며, 특히 2012. 4. 24.경에는 피고인 A과 C에게 "니네들 사진 인터넷에 올릴거야, 이거하고 이거, 그니까 누가 나 무시하랬냐고, 내가 안올릴거 같지? 그래 예전의 나라면 안올렸겠지, 누굴 호구로 아나본데 나도 화낼때는 화내거든요. 이 망할 축생새끼야, 어쨌든 거지같은 남친 잘 설득하던가 아님 거기서 잘 나와봐, 너한테만 주는 특별 기회야, 어머 뭐라고? 사진 올려달라고? 아주 그냥 신상털리는게 재밌나 보구나" 등의 소위 말하는 '신상털기'를 하겠다는 내용 등의 협박문자를 하루 동안 44회에 걸쳐 집중적으로 보냈다(V의 법정진술, 피고인 A, C에 대한 각 검찰 제1회 피의자신문조서, 수사기록 제1211쪽 이하 등).

B) Conversation between the Defendants before committing the crime

① Defendant A, C, and D criticized the victim in sharing the said victim’s abusive language through a Kakao Stockholm room. Defendant A, C, and D responded to the said victim’s abusive language by humothying, etc.

② 피고인 C는 지인인 M을 통하여 알게 된 피고인 B과의 카카오톡 대화방에서 위와 같은 피해자의 지속적인 욕설 문자 등으로 힘든 사실을 이야기해 오던 중 2012. 4. 25. 01:32경 피고인 B에게 "볼때마다 눈물나고, 짜증나고, 어이없고, 화나고, 분하고, 입 찢어발기고 싶다, 힘들어.."라는 문자를 보냈으며, 같은 날 오후 피고인 A은 피고인 C와 함께 있는 자리에서 피고인 B에게 피해자의 대학교 기숙사 주소를 전송하였으며, 이에 피고인 B이 "아예 우편주소를 보내주네 그냥, 몇층 몇호인지는 모르려나 랄까 너 도죽이길 바라는 거냐", "토요일 당일밖에 시간 안나긴 한다만, 이번주에 가서 물어보고, 다음주에 사살하고, 그러면 되려나, 늦으면 바로 하고"라고 답변하자, 피고인 A은 "서두르다 일망쳐, 철저하게 하자, 철저ㅇㅈㅇ"라고 답하였으며, 같은 대화방에서 이러한 내용을 지켜보던 닉네임 Z(전화번호: AA)가 "청부살인?!"이라고 말하자 피고인 B이 "알건없고"라고 답하였다(수사기록 제1425쪽 이하 등), ③ 피해자는 위와 같이 욕설 문자를 보내던 중 2012. 4. 23.경 피고인 D과 전화로 싸운 후 "너한테 화낼 것이 아니었는데 미안하다, 내가 잘못했다. 화 풀리면 연락줘라"는 문자메세지를 남기고, 같은 달 24. 피고인 C에게 "거지 같은 남친 잘 설득하던가 아님 거기서 잘 나와봐ㅋㅋㅋ, 너한테만 주는 특별한 기회야, 지금이라도 미안하다고 사과하면 특별히 넌 봐줄게ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ"라는 문자를 남겼으며, 같은 달 24. 오후부터 25. 새벽까지 피고인 A에게 "아아 쏘리, 너무 힘들어서 멘붕했었음, 우리 뭐 때문에 싸운거지?"라는 문자를 남기는 등 피고인들에게 화해를 원하는 듯한 태도를 보였다(수사기록 제1460쪽, 1615쪽 이하 등).

④ 위와 같은 피해자의 사과를 구하는 듯한 문자에도, 피고인 D은 2012. 4. 24. 위 대화방에 "발밑에 엎드려서 발가락 하나하나에 입 맞추고 핥으며 사과하고 찬양한데도 절대 용서 안 할 테니, 난 그새끼 면상 안 봐, 복수는 칼같이!" 라는 문자를 남겼고, 같은 날부터 피고인들은 피해자에게 저주를 걸자는 등의 내용이 담긴 문자를 주고받았다(수사기록 제1602쪽, 1611쪽 이하 등).

⑤ At around 17:30 on April 29, 2012, the victim sent the phrase “A” to Defendant A, “A has been a gift. I want to do so. I wish to do so. -0 (name of victim), now P, 6:0, c., c., c., c., c., c.? installation? I want to directly c., and even if I want to do so, I must directly install it. And even if I want to do so, I need to do so.” The Defendant A sent the word “I want to c.e., to c., c., a number coming between E-gu and E-gu office, and I have been set up at 6:00,000,000, and the victim responded to “I will wait at 6:00,000,000 on the same day” (hereinafter, hereinafter, the investigation record No. 1628).

6 피고인 C는 피고인 A과 피해자 사이에 위와 같은 대화가 이루어질 당시 피고인 A과 함께 있어 피해자가 선물을 가지고 찾아오고 싶어 한다는 사실을 알고는 카카오톡 대화방을 통해서, 같은 날 17:38경 피고인 B에게 "0 0x0, 지금 P에 있는데, 시에 다시 간데이, 선물 주고 감ㅋ, 그래픽카드ㅋㅋㅋㅋ, 거부할 수 없는 템이어서, 화해랍시고 줬지만, 우린 화해 없이, 선물만 받, 그리고 죽으.."라는 말을 하였고, 피고인 B은 같은 날 17:39경 "씁 그새끼 어디온다고 말하면 좋았을텐데, 7시쯤 출발기차려나, 지금 출발해도 늦어..." 라고 답하였으며, 피고인 C는 같은 날 17:45경 "내일 오라 그래?, 그때까지 붙잡고 있겠다는데, A(피고인 A을 지칭하는 'A'의 줄임말) 오빠가이, A오빠네집에서, 괜찮?"이라고 하였고, 피고인 B은 "아니 처리 가능한데가 많은데로, 거기도 괜찮고"라고 말하자 피고인 C는 "P에, 아는데 많단다"라고 답했으며, 같은 날 17:50경 피고인 C는 피고인 B에게 "오빠, 당장 오세요, 제 새벽까지 기다리겠데"라고 말하자 피고인 B이 "집에서 준비 다하면 갈게, 6시 반 전후에 출발"이라고 답하였다.

(Defendant B and A’s partial statement in court, investigation records, etc.).

⑦ 피고인 A은 위와 같은 피고인 C, B의 대화를 같이 있던 피고인C로부터 듣고, 같은 날 17:53경 위 Y 대화방에 "오늘 0잡는 날~♥ , [파티]0 잡는고 구경 하실분3/8" 이라는 문자를 남겼고, 피고인 C는 "ㅋㅋㅋ, 레알로 잡음, 레알이라니까, P도 은밀한 곳이 많당께ㅋ, 가, 제발로 와서, 그래픽카드 선물하고 싶다고, 아는 지인이 잡아주기로 함, 기다리겠데서, 지인 바로 부름, 때리는거 말고, 잡는다고ㅋ, 레알이라니까'는 문자를 남겼으며, 대화방의 일원인 대화명 AB(전화번호: AC)은 "뭔가 돼지 잡는거 생각함, 본격 돼지 잡는 현장, 응 도축일걸"이라 말을 하고, 대화명 AD(전화번호: AE)는 "난회 뜨는 거 ㅇㅂㅇ, 그..해체해서 살 바르는"이라는 말을 하였으며, 이에 피고인 A은 완전범죄, 완료했다고 하면, 톡기록 다 지워주기 요망함, 오씀하 내일 온다네, 개년이ㅋㅋ"라고 말하고, 대화명 AF(AG)가 "직감왔나보네ㅋㅋㅋ, 동물적감각이라던가"라고 말하자 피고인 C는 "ㅋㅋㅋㅋ, 우리도 그말함, 뭔가 불안한걸 챈거아니냐고, 지인이 빡침, 오고 있는데, 내일 온다고 해서ㅋㅋㅋ, 편하게 죽일 가치가 없데ㅋㅋ"라는 말을 했으며, 이에 피고인 D은 "내가 가면 이미 어두운 뒷골목에 핏자국..뿐이냐, ..근데 무섭긴 하다. 막상 목숨 끊는다고 하니... 선물 주러 간다고 가서 실종되면, 우리가 제일 먼저 의심이..."라는 말을 하였고, 피고인 C는 "그냥, 파티안바듬, 구경꾼 많으면 복잡하대니, 증거 없으면, 상관없어, 언니는, 꼭, 쓸데없는 데에, 맘이 약하다"는 말을 하였으며, 피고인 A은 "의심안받게 해줄게, 걱정말고"라고 말했고, 피고인 D은 "....불가피한 희생이다..라고 자기암시 걸어도 되겠지?, 아무리 그래도 인간을 죽인다는게......"라고 말하였다(수사기록 제1466쪽 이하 등).

① As above, Defendant A divided a conversation with Defendant B, who is not a member of the above bar room, and divided a single-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one- one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one- one-one-one- the other was sent to Defendant A’s cell phone message around 18:34 on the same day, and Defendant B called “A”, and Defendant B loaned that “I-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one-one (the other was assigned to the knife type of knife, the other parents are under surveillance.” Defendant A’s mobile phone message continued to be sent to Defendant A, and Defendant C, who had been on the same time, presented that Defendant A’s mobile phone message was prepared for the investigation of Defendant A and 17-3-one-one-party.

④ 피고인 C는 다음날인 4. 30. 10:50경 Y 대화방에서 피고인 D에게 "언니는, 피나 살점 못 보시니, 이대로 와서, 같이 자습이나, 합시다"라고 말하자 피고인 D은 "죽이면 안 된다...라는 기분 자꾸 든다"라는 말을 하였고, 이에 피고인 A이 "세상엔 하루에 3만 건의 살인사건이 일어나, 3만 한 건이라고 달라지는 건 없어, 그 녀석은 도를 넘었어"라고 말하였으며, 피고인 C는 "언니는 잊자, 나나 언니나, 솔까말, 마찬가지니까, 걍, 신경끄고, 나랑, 공부나, 하자니까"라고 말하였고, 이에 피고인 D은 "나 땜에 죽는 것 같기도 하고, 한 명 정도까진, 죽여도 된단거지, 죽여도 그 죄책감 등을 지고갈 수 있다고.."라고 말하였다(수사기록 1477쪽 이하 등).

① On April 30, 2012, around 17:38, Defendant B sent to Defendant B a letter “I wish to depart from this system, how you want to start, how you want to take expected time, and how you arrive at the end of 7:0 p.m. to some extent,” and Defendant A sent the letter “I am on the front day, whether I am sweet, sweet, I am sweet, and I am sweet?” and Defendant B sent the answer letter “I am on the front day, I do not am sweet, I am am sweet,” and Defendant B sent the answer letter “I am a train sweet.”

At around 18:30 on the same day, Defendant D entered the house of Defendant A located in Seodaemun-gu Qok, Seoul, and talked with Defendant A to be be engaged in beer, and two cans and beer owners were dead. Defendant D attempted to bring about one cans from among them, and Defendant D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d e, "

At around 18:31 on the same day, Defendant C received the word “A in the official book, .............. on the same day,” and on around 18:46 on the same day, Defendant C went back to the office to report the victim who was waiting for the house of the above Defendant A. At this time, Defendant B was in the office of Defendant A from the Council and was in the office of Defendant A. At this time, Defendant C explained the place of only one day by means of sending Defendant A’s house and P book to his direction and call (hereinafter, including partial statement of court, 1432 pages, 1634 pages, 1739, 1827 pages, 1739 et al.).

C) Defendants’ speech and behavior at the time of committing the crime

① At around 19:30 on the same day, Defendant A, C, and D moved together with Defendant A, who was waiting for the office of Defendant A, and was waiting for the office of Defendant A in front of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul, and met with Defendant B who was waiting for the office. While continuing the path, Defendant D returned to his own house, and her own house in order to get off the subway (Defendant A and B’s respective legal statements, investigation records, etc.).

Defendant A, B, and C had continued to move to the Seodaemun-gu Tpark in Seoul, which Defendant A thought to be the place of crime. Defendant B, at the same time, had a 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 knife.

③ 피고인 A, B, C는 피해자를 데리고 위 공원의 화장실을 지나 꺽어지는 계단까지 피해자를 데리고 간 후 피해자에게 "잠시 쉬었다 가자"고 말하며 멈춰섰고, 피해자는 계단 위에 자신이 가져온 노트북 꺼내서 켰다. 피고인 C는 피해자의 앞쪽에 있는 아래 계단에 걸터앉아있었고, 피고인 B은 위쪽에 사람이 있는지 보기 위해 갔다가 피해자의 뒤쪽에 서고, 피고인 A은 피해자의 옆에 섰다.

피고인 A은 피해자에게 "왜 쓸데없이 문자해서 귀찮게 하느냐"고 묻자, 피해자는 "니네가 먼저 시작하지 않았느냐, 너 그렇게 사는 것 아니다"는 등의 대답을 하여 말다툼을 하였다. 이때 피고인 B이 고개를 끄떡이며 피고인 A에게 신호를 보내고 뒤쪽에서 피해자의 목을 전화선으로 졸랐고, 피고인 A은 발버둥치는 피해자로부터 발로 차이게 되자 접이식 칼(준비해간 과도는 범행에 실제 사용되지 않았다. 이하 '칼'이라 한다)로 피해자의 다리, 팔, 복부 등을 수십 회 마구 찌르기 시작하였으며, 피고인 B은 전화선만으로는 안 되겠다는 생각이 들어 팔로 피해자의 목을 감아 조였다. 이때 피고인 C는 계단을 타고 흘러내리는 피를 보고서 Y 대화방에 "악 피다, 멘붕" 등의 글을 올렸고, 위와 같이 피고인 A의 칼에 찔린 피해자는 옆 화단에 엎드리며 누웠으며, 피고인 B은 피해자로부터 2~3m 정도 떨어진 곳에 있던 피고인 C에게 피고인 B의 가방에서 쇠파이프를 꺼내어 달라고 부탁하였고, 피고인 C가 위 가방을 뒤졌으나 쇠파이프를 찾지 못하자 피고인 B은 직접 가방에서 쇠파이프를 가져왔으며, 피고인 C는 아무 말 없이 그곳으로부터 약 20~30m 떨어진 곳으로 내려갔다. 위 피고인들의 공격에 피해자는 힘이 빠져 엎드려 있었고, 피고인 B은 피해자의 뒷목을 누르고 피고인 A은 칼로 피해자의 몸을 찔렀으며, 피해자는 고통을 이기지 못해 "잘못했다. 제발 살려달라"고 애원을 하면서 일어나려고 했고, 이에 피고인 B은 쇠파이프로 피해자의 머리를 내리치기 시작하였고 피고인 A도 계속해서 피해자를 칼로 찔렀다. 피고인 A, B은 쇠파이프와 칼을 서로 바꾸어 들고 피고인 A이 쇠파이프로 피해자의 머리와 몸 등을 수 회 때리고, 피고인 B은 칼을 든 채로 피해자의 가슴을 밟았으며, 다시 위 피고인들은 쇠파이프와 칼을 바꾸어 들었다. 이에 피해자가 고통을 이기지 못하고 몸을 뒤집어 길 쪽으로 굴러떨어져 똑바로 누워 계속해서 알아들을 수 없는 말을 하자, 피고인 B은 가져온 수건으로 입을 막으려고 했는데 뱉어내서 실패했고, 계속해서 피고인 A은 칼로 찌르고 피고인 B은 쇠파이프로 머리를 내리쳤다. 이때 피고인 B은 위 공원을 지나던 U이 범행현장으로 다가오는 것을 발견하고 피고인 A에게 목격자가 있으니 잠깐 그만하자고 말하여 범행을 멈추고, 피고인 B은 쇠파이프를, 피고인 A은 칼을 각자 보이지 않도록 숨기고 위 U이 지나가는 것을 기다렸다. 피고인 B은 U이 위 장소를 지나간 뒤 어딘가로 전화하는 것을 보고 경찰에 신고하는 것으로 생각하여 피고인 A에게 "안되겠다. 빨리 끝내야겠다"라고 말하며 쇠파이프로 피해자의 머리 등을 재차 수 회 내리치면서 피고인 A에게 "확실히 하려면 심장쪽을 하는게 낫지 않느냐"는 말을 하였고, 피고인 A은 칼로 가슴 등을 수 회 찔러, 약 40회의 자상 등을 입은 피해자를 즉석에서 전신다발성 자창 등으로 사망하게 하였다(피고인 C의 일부 법정진술, 수사기록 제178쪽, 제1700쪽, 제1751쪽 이하 등).

④ The victim died and her head, Defendant B, and Defendant A started to her head on the side of the bridge and move the victim, and Defendant B changed her place to a grass forest with approximately five to six meters away from the middle due to the collapse of the victim. At this point, Defendant B got her knife from the victim’s knife in order to ensure the victim’s knife, and turned her back two knife, so as to keep the victim’s knife clear even though it was confirmed that the knife’s knife was not hidden. In this case, Defendant B got her knife to leave the knife with the victim’s knife with the knife with the knife with the knife, and Defendant B confirmed the victim’s knife with the knife with the knife with the knife.

⑤ From the above swimming, Defendant A was in front of the Defendant C without any speech, Defendant B got off his cell phone from the above swimming pool and her criminal act was put into the Defendant C, and Defendant B called “whether or not the Defendant would have been infinite bank”, and Defendant B left the victim’s street in the victim’s cell phone, and Defendant A left the victim’s street in the victim’s cell phone with traffic card. At this point, Defendant B left the victim’s cell phone and left the cell phone from 7 days before the victim’s cell phone. Defendant B left the cell phone from 7 days before the victim’s cell phone and left the cell phone from 7 days after the victim’s cell phone. Defendant B left the cell phone from 7 days after the victim’s cell phone and left the cell phone from 7 days after the victim’s cell phone. Defendant B left the victim’s cell phone to 8 days before the victim’s cell phone and returned the victim’s body to C and the victim’s park.

D) After committing the crime, the Defendants’ dialogue

① 피고인 C는 같은 날 21:00경 Y 대화방에 "처리했음"이라는 문자를 남겼고, 피고인 A은 AI역에서 손을 씻은 후 피고인 D에게 "끝"이라고 보냈으며, 피고인 C는 22:00경 피고인 D에게 "언니, 일 끝났는데 걱정하지마, 자수하지마, 언니가 제일 걱정이야"라는 내용의 문자를 보냈고, 피고인 A은 23:40경 피해자의 친구 AJ으로부터 "저 AJ인데요. 이랑 잘 헤어지셨죠?, 연락이 전혀 안되네요"라는 문자를 받고는 "집에 잘 들어갔는데요"라고 답변하였다(수사기록 제2361쪽, 제3532쪽 등).

② 피고인 C는 2012. 5. 1. 00:09경 피고인 A에게 틱톡으로 "잠이 안오네, 나 오늘만, 술 마시게 해주라, 잠 잘만큼만, 혼자 있는게 이렇게 불안하기는 처음이네, 솔직히 나보다 오빠가 더 할거같은데, 감싸주질 못하네"라고 말했고, 피고인 A은 "많이 마시지 마요, 바보, 꼬마는 빨리 자기나 해야죠, 내일 데이튼데, 내일 헤롱대면 때찌할 거야"라고 답했으며, 피고인 C는 다시 "내일 오빠옆에서 자게해줘~, 바보, 사랑해, 잘자구, 내꿈꿔 "라고 말하자, 피고인 A은 "나두 사랑해, 내꿈꿔, 잘자요~"라고 답하였다(수사기록 1149쪽 이하 등).

③ 피고인 B은 2012. 5. 1. 00:27경 피고인 C, A을 틱톡 그룹대화에 초대하였고 위 대화방에서, 피고인 A은 "거기 우리 삼촌 집 옆임 알아두라고ㅍㅈㅍ, 사건장소"라고 말했고, 피고인 B이 "아 잠깐 그걸 왜 지금 말해!" 라고 말하였으며, 피고인 C는 "와야 말을 맞추죠, 정기적으로, 지워가면서 얘기해"라고 말했다. 이어서 피고인 C는 같은 날 00:32경 피고인 B과의 일대일 틱톡 대화에서 "우리가 안전한건 아니지, 많이 위험한가.., 상황을 모르겠어, 불안해서 돌겠네"라고 말하였고, 피고인 B은 "증인만 없었으면 됐어, 증인이 애매해, 너는 이 상황에 개입 안된거라 생각해"라고 말했으며, 피고인 C는 다시 "괜히 내가 일 크게 벌린거같아.., 내가 참았으며, 조용히 끝날 일이었는데... 괜히 피묻히게 한거 같고.... 아까 A오빠가 지나가는 말로, 나 한순간에 살인자됐네ㅋ 하는데, 너무너무 미안하다. 미치겠어... 나는 안 엮였다 할만한 증거가 많지만, A오빠는, 아니잖아"라고 말했고, 피고인 B은 "맨날 참고만 살잖아 언젠가는 터질 일이었어, 나는 이미 많이 해왔었으니 상관없지만 A가 문제인걸, 난 이미 몇번이고 저질렀으니까"라고 말하였으며, 계속해서 피고인 C는 "..하아, B(피고인 B을 지칭하는 'B'의 줄임말)오빠야, 연관된게, 거의 없으니, 그렇다치지만, A오빠가, 너무 걱정되네, 아~하더라도 완벽하게할걸, 각자 증거 없애는 데에, 신경 쏟는 쪽으로"라고 말했고, 피고인 B은 "내가 했다고 한다니까. 내 무기들로 한거잖아"라고 말했으며, 피고인 C는 "별일 없겠지요, 늘 그렇듯, 흘러갔으면 좋겠다, 아무일 없었다는 듯이, 내가 부추긴건데"라는 등의 문자를 주고받았다(수사기록 제1161쪽 이하 등).

2) Whether the crime of murder was committed jointly

A) The intention of murdering is not necessarily required to be the purpose of murder or to have a planned intention of murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive, but also it is not definite, so-called willful negligence is recognized as the criminal intent of murder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004). In co-principal committing a crime by which two or more persons jointly process and commit a crime, the conspiracy or conspiracy does not necessarily need to be made directly and explicitly, and in some cases, it may be done through a group of doctors who intend to jointly realize the crime. If the defendant denies a criminal intention together with the fact of conspiracy, such subjective element is not necessarily proven by an indirect method or circumstantial method that proves considerable relevance with the fact of the crime, and it should be reasonably linked to an indirect fact that is highly related by an empirical rule of 201.

나) 앞서 인정한 사실들에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉, 피고인 A, C, D은 피해자의 독선적인 행동에 대해 평소 불만을 품고 있던 중 피고인 D과 피해자의 연인관계가 정리된 후 단체 대화방에서 피해자를 따돌렸고 이에 피해자가 분노하여 위 피고인들에게 수십 회에 걸쳐 욕설과 협박문자를 보냈던 점, 이러한 피해자의 행동에 화가 난 위 피고인들은 단체 대화방에서 피해자를 비난하기 시작하였고 점점 그 비난의 수위가 높아지던 중 2012. 4. 10.경 피고인 D으로부터 피해자를 "죽이고 싶다"는 말이 나왔으며 이에 다른 피고인들이 동조하면서 계속적으로 그러한 취지의 이야기를 나누었던 점, 피고인 C, A은 피고인 B에게 피해자로 인하여 많이 힘들다는 이야기를 하면서 피해자의 기숙사 주소까지 알려주며 직접 찾아가 해결해 달라는 취지의 이야기를 하였고 이러한 대화를 같은 그룹 대화창에서 지켜보던 제3자인 대화명 Z도 '청부살인'으로 느꼈던 점, 피고인 A은 같은 달 29. 피해자가 다음날 찾아온다는 것을 알고 피고인 B에게 다음날 와달라고 말하면서 범행에 사용할 칼을 구체적으로 선택하였고 이러한 대화를 피고인 C도 보았던 점, 같은 달 29. Y 대화방에서 피고인 A, C는 단순히 피해자를 때리는 것이 아닌 "잡는다"라는 내용의 글을 올렸고 이러한 내용을 그룹 대화창에서 지켜보던 제3자들도 이를 "돼지 잡는 것" 또는 "회 뜨는 것" 등에 비유한 점, 피고인 A, C, D은 범행 전날과 범행일 오전에 대화를 나눌 때 피해자에 대해 "실종"된다거나 "희생된다는 표현을 사용하고 "살인사건"의 발생에 대해 말했으며, 피고인 B은 피고인 A과 수사의 혼선을 주기 위해 범행 후 피해자의 핸드폰을 가져가기로 사전에 이야기하는 등 피해자의 죽음이 전제되거나 암시되는 대화를 진지하게 나눈 점, 피고인들은 사전에 미리 접이식 칼, 과도, 코르크 따개, 수건 2장, 전화선 등을 준비하였고, 피해자를 살해할 당시에도 피고인 A, B은 서로 신호를 주고 받으며 한 명은목을 조르고 한 명은 칼로 찌르기 시작하였고 목격자가 지나가자 범행을 멈추고 이후 계속적으로 범행을 이어가는 등 우발적인 범죄라기보다는 사전에 마련된 계획에 따라 냉정하게 행동한 것으로 평가되는 점, 피고인 C도 피고인 A, B이 피해자를 칼로 찌를 당시 불과 2~3m 떨어진 장소에 있었음에도 이를 말리거나 놀라기보다는 피고인 B의 부탁으로 흉기인 쇠파이프를 가방에서 찾기도 하고, 위와 같은 사정을 인식한 상태에서 그곳을 지나려는 사람들을 못 가게 하는 등 실행행위를 분담한 것으로 평가될 정도의 행동을 하였던 점, 사건이 일어난 직후 위 피고인들은 목격자가 존재한다거나 검거될 경우에 대한 걱정이나 서로 간의 애정을 확인하는 대화를 나누었을 뿐, 피고인들의 변명처럼 애초에 폭행하고 칼 등으로 위협을 하려다가 예상치 못한 상황에서 우발적으로 살인행위에 나아가게 된 점에 대한 당혹감, 놀람, 후회 등을 내용으로 하는 대화내용은 찾아볼 수 없는 점 등에 비추어보면, 피고인 A, B, C는 피해자를 살해하기로 순차적으로 공모하여 사전계획에 따라 그 실행행위에 나아간 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 위 피고인들 및 그 변호인들의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

2. As to the special larceny of paragraph (3) of the judgment

A. Summary of the defendant C and his defense counsel's assertion

There was no prior contest for how to deal with the goods of Defendant A, B, and the victim, there was no fact that the victim incurred the goods at the scene of the crime, and there was no intention to acquire illegal goods.

B. Determination

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) Defendant C wasged at the scene of the crime of this case with the victim; (ii) Defendant C had already been at the place where the victim was a victim after killing the victim and abandoning the body of the victim; (iii) Defendant C had already been at the place where the victim was a victim; and (iv) Defendant B had been at the place where the victim was a victim; and (v) Defendant C had been under the place where the victim was a victim’s injury was reported; and (v) Defendant B had not prevented the Defendant C, who was in compliance with the instructions of the victim’s injury and the actions of the Defendant A; and (v) there was no consensus with the Defendant’s request before the toilet during the above T Park Park, and thus, Defendant B and his defense counsel could not be accepted from the scene where the victim was a victim’s injury was discovered; and (v) whether Defendant B and Nonparty C had actually been at the place where the victim was a victim’s injury.

3. As to the crime of aiding and abetting murder under paragraph (4) of the judgment

A. Summary of the defendant D and his defense counsel's assertion

It was difficult to say that the Defendants would have died of the victim. On the day of the instant case, the Defendants did not anticipate the death of the victim, and the Defendants did not have any other Defendants’ act of killing the victim.

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

A) The Defendant’s words before murdering the victim

① On April 1, 2012, Defendant D received a separate declaration from the victim on April 1, 2012, and the Defendant A and C through the Kakakaox, saying, “I am lux with the new wall at .00 times, I am lux with the lux, and I am lux with the victim.” After that, Defendant D am lux with the victim, I am am lux with the victim who was dissatisfied with the victim’s ordinary luxical attitude. Accordingly, I am am lux with the victim with the victim’s constant abusive language.

② 피고인 D은 2012. 4. 10.경부터 자신이 과외를 하던 학생인 피고인 A에게 "쟤 좀 죽일 수 없냐"는 등의 말을 하기 시작하였고, 같은 달 17. 12:24경 피고인 A에게 카카오톡 대화방에서 "어이, 저 새끼 죽여도돼"라고 말하였고 이에 피고인 A이 "진심?"이라고 묻자 "진심"이라고 답하였으며, 같은 달 24. "죽여, 걍, 슬퍼할 이 없으니, 너 죽이는거 허락받았담서 "라고 말하자, 피고인 A이 "미친 사람의 명을 바꾸는게 얼마나 힘든지 알아?"라고 말하였으며, 피고인 D은 같은 날 "발밑에 엎드려서 발가락 하나 하나에 입 맞추고 핥으며 사과하고 찬양한데도 절대 용서 안할테니, 내 블로그에 글쌈절대 용서 않는다고, 죽어버렸음 좋겠다고"라고 말하였고, 같은 날 08:29경 자신의 블로그에 "진심으로 니가 죽었으면 좋겠어"라는 글을 올리고 이에 피고인 C가 댓글을 달았으며, 피고인 D은 계속해서 위 카카오톡 대화방에서 같은 날 "A야, 주술과 부적으로 까고, 발라줘, 못 믿으면 친히 보여줘야지, 부적 그딴거 굳게 안 믿는 놈은, 믿음을 깨부숴서 멘붕시키고, 그다음에 밟아줘야, 뒤탈이 없어요, 밟을 때 꼭 야수화 하고"라고 말하였다(피고인 A의 일부 법정진술 등)

On April 26, 2012, around 21:58, Defendant D stated that “this is all because, for this reason, OUT, leaving a district, drinking liquor is good, water evidence is good, no evidence exists, in the case of murder, the murder also wanting to be the garnment of the UN garnment, and that she is the impoverment” (No. 1610 pages, No. 1726 pages, etc. of the Investigation Records).

피고인 A, C가 2012. 4. 29. 피해자가 선물을 가지고 찾아오겠다고 하자 피고인 B과 범행을 모의한 후 Y 대화방에 피해자를 "잡는다”는 등의 말을 하자 피고인 D은 "사진기대, 도축돋네"라고 말하였고, 피고인 C가 "지인이 빡침, 내일 온다 해서, 편하게 죽일 가치가 없데ㅋㅋㅋ"라고 말하자 피고인 D은 "ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ, 내가 가면 이미 어두운 뒷골목에 핏자국..뿐이냐, ..근데 무섭긴 하다. 막상 목숨 끊는다고 하니.... 선물 주러 간다고 가서 실종되면, 우리가 제일 먼저 의심이.... 아무리 씹새끼라지만.... ... 불가피한 희생이다..라고 자기암시 걸어도 되겠지?, 아무리 그래도 인간을 죽인다는게....."라고 말하였고, 피고인 C는 "언니는, 쓸데없는데에, 맘이 약하다"라고 답하였다.

④ At around 10:28 on April 30, 2012, Defendant D responded to Defendant A, “I will see at any time, whether I will be able to see it, whether I will be able to see it, whether I will be able to see it, whether I will be able to see it, or whether I will be able to see it, at late at 5:0,00, and at latest at 6:0.” Defendant A asked Defendant A and C to “I will be sick.” At around 10:52, Defendant A and C “I will be sick................. is me cannot see the fact that I will be able to see 30,000 per day, and 30,000 won per day,” and Defendant A died of her satch, and there is no reason for Defendant A’s death.

At around 18:30 on the same day, Defendant D entered the house of Defendant A into the name of English and foreign business, and divided beer two cans into one cans with Defendant A, and the Defendant “I am as follows...... how I am sponsed so.....” Defendant C sent mobile phone messages to Defendant A and Defendant B at the house of the above Defendant C, and asked Defendant C as “B,” the horses of Defendant B, and “I am spons,” and “I am sponsed,” and “I am sponsed, I am sponsed,” and “I am sponsed,” and “I am sponsed, I am sponsed,” and “I am 7 am 17 am, I am am sphere,” and “I am 7 am sphere,” and “I am sphere,”.

⑤ 이후 피고인 A, C, D이 위 피고인 A의 집을 나와 피해자와 함께 서대문구 R 앞에서 피고인 B을 만나 길을 가던 중 갑자기 피고인 D은 집으로 가겠다며 S역에서 다른 피고인들과 헤어졌고, 피고인 D은 집으로 돌아가는 지하철 안에서 피고인 A, C에게 "일 처리 잘해라, 지갑 나오면 반띵하자"라는 문자를 보냈고, 이를 본 피고인 A, C는 위 문자를 피고인 B에게 보여주었다.

B) After killing the victim, the Defendant’s speech

① Since then, Defendant A, B, and C murdered the victim, and Defendant C sent to Defendant D a word “I am am me, am me at the end of the day, I am am me, I am am me, I am am me at the day, I am am.” (Article 3532 of the Investigation Records).

피고인 D은 다음날인 2012. 5. 1. 10:46경 피고인 A에게 "그거, 어제일벌인 그거 아니지? 처리를 그리 허술히 했을리없지. 암, 내가 기사주소 복붙했자나"라고 말하자, 피고인 A은 "아누나....그런거 퍼나르지마, 의심만받아" 라고 답하였고, 피고인 D은 "근 데.... 역시 그분 혼자 했음, 완벽했을까, 아쉽네, 칼외엔 잡은거 없지?"라고 말하였고, 피고인 A은 "누나때메 걸리는게 확률 제일 높다, 그냥 가만있어"라고 답하였고, 피고인 D은 "지갑을 빼서 단순강도로 하면 좋은데, 지갑...내가 그랬잖아, 돈 반띵 하자고, ㅠㅠ"라고 말하는 등 이 사건에 관한 인터넷 기사를 찾아보면서 그에 대한 대화를 나누었다(수사기록 제1509쪽, 1639쪽 이하 등).

2) Whether the crime of aiding and abetting murder was established

A) An act of aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to any direct or indirect act that facilitates the commission of a principal offender while knowing the fact that the principal offender is committing a crime. It also constitutes an act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting the principal offender, such as strengthening the resolution of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1303, Apr. 27, 2007). An intentional act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender and an act of aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender constitutes an act that constitutes an element of a crime. However, in the event that the principal offender denies such intentional act, it is inevitable to prove an indirect act that is highly related to the principal offender in light of the nature of the object, and what constitutes an indirect act that is considerably related, there is no way to reasonably determine the connection of the fact by using the detailed observation or analysis capabilities of the principal offender based on normal empirical rule. Moreover, it is not sufficient to expect that the principal offender’s intentional act is not required to be realized by the principal offender, but to be realized by 2005.

나) 제1항과 이 항에서 인정한 사실들을 종합하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 피고인 D은 피해자와 연인관계에 있던 자로서 피해자의 욕설문자 등에 가장 큰 상처를 받았던 것으로 보이고, 가장 먼저 피고인 A 등에게 피해자가 죽었으면 좋겠다는 말을 하였던 점, 피고인 D은 피고인 A, C가 속해 있는 Y 대화방의 사실상 리더역할을 하였고, 고등학생인 피고인 A에게 과외를 해주는 등 피고인 A, C에게 사실상 상당한 영향력을 행사할 수 있는 지위에 있었던 점, 피고인 A, C에게 카카오톡 또는 블로그를 통해 피해자가 죽었으면 좋겠다는 의사를 지속적으로 표시하고, 피고인 A에게는 "죽여, 너 죽이는거 허락 받았다면서 "라는 등의 말을 하면서 죽여주길 원하는 듯한 말을 하였던 점, 이 사건 범행 직전 고등학생인 피고인 A에게 술을 사주고 옷에 피가 튀게 될 경우 어떻게 대처할지 이야기해주었으며, 피고인들과 S역에서 헤어진 직후 피고인 A, C에게 "일 처리 잘해라, 지갑 나오면 반띵하자"라는 문자를 보냈던 점, 피해자가 사망하기 전날부터 사망한 날까지 피고인 D은 카카오톡 대화방에서 "핏자국", "목숨 끊는다고 하니" 등 피해자의 죽음을 의미하는 문구가 포함된 글을 올렸고, 사건 다음 날인 5. 1. 오전에 다른 피고인들보다 먼저 이 사건에 관한 기사를 검색해 대화방에 올렸으며, 피고인 A에게 먼저 "칼" 외에 만진 것은 없는지 묻는 등 흉기에 대해 알고 있었던 점, 이 사건 이후 다른 피고인들에게 자신 예상하지 못한 피해자의 사망을 추궁하는 태도를 보인 것이 아니라, 앞으로의 수사과정에서 자신이 연관된 것이 밝혀질지 여부에 대해 더 관심을 두고 있었던 점 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인 D은 자신보다 어린 고등학생인 피고인 A, C와 피해자에 대한 비난을 공유하면서 피해자에 대한 증오심이 커지도록 하고, 피해자에 대한 지속적인 죽음에 관하여 이야기함으로써 위 피고인들의 살해 결의를 강화하도록 정신적으로 방조한 사실을 충분히 인정할 수 있으므로, 피고인 D 및 그 변호인의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

Sentencing 1)

Defendant A, C, and D, solely on the ground that the victim, who was aware of a usual ties or friendly relationship, was able to kill the victim due to the expression of anger who was bullyingd from the victim. Defendant B, even though she did not face with the victim, planned murder by gathering only the horses of Defendant C, etc., and conspired to murder with the above Defendants, even though she did not have a common sense with the victim, and the victim, who did not have a usual aggressive nature, was able to fight against the victim, but rather used it to kill the victim, rather than by taking advantage of the expression that she could flickly flick, it is difficult for the victim to take into account how she would cope with the crime, or how she would use any knife in advance. After murder the victim, the Defendants’ murdered the Internet articles about this case and to search them and to take them differently from the facts, and, in light of the fact that the Defendants did not have any mental harm or flive behavior with Defendant C, it is more difficult to find the victim’s.

Defendant A and B: (a) committed an act of murder with a knife knife with the victim; (b) prepared one knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife; (c) prepared one knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife; (d) committed a crime; (b) the victim continued to use a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a knife with a view to committing the crime; and (c) committed a crime under Article 201 of the Juvenile Act with a view to committing the crime under Article 304 of imprisonment.

Defendant C took part in the crime of this case, taking into account the following facts: (a) Defendant B, who led the specific conspiracy of murder, took part in the crime of this case; (b) Defendant A and B, at the time of the murder, took part in the pipe or seeing the network at the request of Defendant B at the time of the murder; and (c) Defendant C shared the crime of this case by denying and all responsibilities for this case; (d) Defendant C is consistent with the vindication that the responsibility for the crime of this case was committed. However, considering that Defendant C was a juvenile of 15 years of age who was directly under the age of 15, the liability for the crime is very heavy; (b) Defendant C selected a limited term of imprisonment and sentenced to the maximum term of 1

Defendant D’s overworked students and college students who worked in a Y room and want to kill the victim as they can exercise a considerable mental influence, and continued to do so, thereby strengthening the resolution of murder of other Defendants, and strengthening the resolution of murder of the other Defendants, rather than seriously against their mistake, the criminal liability is very heavy, taking into account the following: (a) Defendant D’s overworked students and college students who want to kill the victim; and (b) Defendant D’s overworked students and who continued to work in a Y room; and (c) Defendant D is consistently acting in a vindication that all of them were involved rather than seriously against their mistake; (d) Defendant D’s commission of the principal offender’s commission of the commission of the principal offender’s conduct

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant A and B, led the victim already died in a grass forest, and abandoned the body in collusion with Defendant C, as stated in the crime No. 3 of the judgment.

2. Determination

The burden of proof of criminal facts prosecuted in a criminal trial is the prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do735, Apr. 27, 2006; 2006Do1713, May 26, 2006).

According to the evidence duly examined by this court, the following facts are acknowledged: ① Defendant C conspiredd with Defendant A and B in advance to kill the victim; ② on the day of the instant case, Defendant C used to kill the victim; ③ At the time of the murder of Defendant A and B, Defendant C, and the body of the victim, Defendant C sent the body of the victim at a place less than 20 meters away, but there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant A, B, and C attempted to kill the victim and then abandon the body of the victim; and there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the fact that Defendant C was involved in the act of the abandonment of the body of the victim; ② Defendant C and B reported at a place less than 20 meters away from the victim’s body, and there is no other indirect evidence to acknowledge the crime of conspiracy of the body of the victim.

3. Conclusion

If so, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, it is not guilty under the latter part of Article 325

Judges fixed-ranking

Judges Kim Gung-sung

2) Pursuant to Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act and Article 4(2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes, imprisonment for a limited term shall be sentenced to an indefinite term, but the maximum term shall not exceed 15 years, and the minimum term shall not exceed seven years.