2014No115 homicide (the name of the ancillary crime: damage to the body of the dead, damage to the present building and fire), fraud, and attempted fraud

GoAA (80******************)***) and Company members

Prosecutor

In case of prosecutor Kim Jong-chul (prosecutions) and mobile heat (public trial)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2012Gohap348 Decided February 13, 2014

January 9, 2015

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, even though the facts charged in this case were fully convicted, the court below rejected the objective evidence proving the defendant's crime without any reasonable grounds, by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Amendments to Bill of Indictment;

In the first instance of the trial, the prosecutor previously stated that “the Defendant had to apply for the modification of an indictment to add the facts of murder, death, destruction of the body, destruction of the structure, fire prevention, fraud, and attempted fraud” as the primary facts charged, and the subject of the judgment was added by this court upon permission (the primary facts charged are based on facts, and the Defendant murdered the victim’s rightB by causing gas explosion.” “The preliminary facts charged are based on facts, and then, the Defendant murdered the victim by an influence method, and then destroyed the victim’s body by causing a fire by gas explosion.”

The following reasons for appeal by the prosecutor concerning the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged are examined as follows.

3. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor concerning the primary facts charged

A. Summary of the facts charged

On December 26, 2007, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with AIG Life Insurance Co., Ltd. to receive insurance proceeds of KRW 300 million ( KRW 100 million: KRW 100 million; KRW 200 million; KRW 200 million); on January 10, 2008, the Defendant, who is the insured, entered into an insurance contract to receive insurance proceeds of KRW 700 million (main contract: KRW 200 million; KRW 500 million; KRW 500,000,000) from the victim when the victim died; and thereafter, entered into each of the above insurance contracts to the effect that the Defendant was able to receive insurance proceeds by murdering the victim by means of gas explosion; and it was difficult to claim insurance proceeds by claiming insurance proceeds from a disguised accident (homicide).

On March 11, 2008, the Defendant: (a) around 30 to 17:0, around 00, at the Defendant’s house located in Daejeon Taedong-gu 00 000 dong 000 dong 0000 dong apartment (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”); (b) opened at the top of the Defendant’s house and separated gas stuffs connected to the gas siren, set up in the lower bottom; (c) opened at the top of the top and lower bottom of the gas pipeline; (d) opened at 1/2 of the interim valves of the gas pipeline, and opened at the bottom of the lower part of the gas pipeline so that the Defendant may cause a portable siren environment to cause gas leakage by setting a portable gas siren; and (e) setting up a portable gas siren on the side of the gas siren, including a smelling charge on a portable siren; and (e) setting out a portable gas siren or an environment where the victim may use the gas siren.

In addition, at around 17:40 to 17:45, the victim who is not aware of the fact that the gas explosion environment was created by the defendant was the third location of the gas siren. The victim died at that location due to the shock of the nuclear power plant, because of the victim's face, the strong flame to the body, and the shock of the nuclear power plant so that the strong flames to the body can be made up.

The Defendant murdered the victim in the above manner.

(2) On July 8, 2008, the Defendant: (a) filed a claim for insurance money as if the rightB died after the Defendant killed the victim’s AI life insurance company; and (b) the Defendant, such as the above (i) filed a claim for insurance money as if the Plaintiff died by the telegraphic image caused by fire; (b) around August 21, 2008, the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the employee in the name of the Defendant’s bank account (73601 - 01 - 050425) from the employee in the name of the said company to the Defendant’s bank account (73601 - 050425).

(B) On September 5, 2008, the Defendant filed a claim for the transfer of KRW 700 million insurance money to the Agricultural Cooperative Account in the name of the Defendant (453069 - 52 - 06793) as if he died of the Defendant’s death with the rightB, such as the above paragraph (1). However, the Defendant did not withhold the payment of insurance money on the ground that the issue of the Defendant’s claim for insurance money was under investigation and did not result in attempted crimes.

B. The judgment of the court below

6) In light of the following circumstances, the lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that gas leakage was not likely to have been separated from the instant gas sirens before the occurrence of the fire, and that there were circumstances to suspect that the Defendant was capable of working as an offender for the instant crime, such as the occurrence of a large amount of disaster or partial change thereof, but it was difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had created a situation where gas leakage was capable of working during the time indicated in the facts charged, and that there was no reasonable doubt as to the existence of a separate gas leakage in light of the indirect evidence supporting that the Defendant had been working as an apartment during the time of the instant accident, and that there was no possibility that the Defendant would have been separated from the instant gas leakage at the time. (1) The premise of the instant facts charged was that the Defendant’s act was separated from the instant gas leakage in light of the indirect facts and circumstances leading the Defendant to the death of the victim.

2) The Supreme Prosecutors' Office' Office's report on consultation with the fire investigation team in the office of the scientific investigation officer of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office (the fire-prevention suspicion): heat and postponement due to combustion occur if a fire occurs, and in this case, the heat is cut off at the vehicle's port and the surface is sprinked. If gas strings are combined with gas sirens, all sides of the connecting strings must be checked if the link is not separated. However, it is observed that the part on the floor of the connecting strings is not sprinked, and thus, the connecting string is judged to have been abandoned before a fire.

3) State and water appraisal results ( June 3, 2009): In view of the unique points, etc. that may be deemed as being separated by force or flames due to functional malfunction or defects in the connection chain, and in the event that gas connection area had contacted external flames with the gas connection area after the conclusion of the gas license, only the connection between the connection and the head of the unit is not separated, and the connection between the gas connection area is not distinguishable, and the connection with the fire site is not distinguishable from the combustion in the connection chain, it is presumed that the connection between the fire site of this case was separated from the fire before a fire without safety monitoring and was burned into the flame at the bottom of the fire at the bottom.

(B) Determination

In full view of the opinions of the experts on the timing of escape from the gas strings, it is determined that the gas string was already separated from the gas strings before fire, and was located at the bottom of the strings.

(3) Whether the gas license is artificially separated from the gas siren area (A) the appraisal result and the situation before and after the case

1) Results of the appraisal by the state and the water ( June 3, 2009): The reason for the separation of gas stuffs can be seen as "proced conclusion condition" or "proced artificially," and it is impossible to discuss whether the inspection of the appraisal materials alone makes a normal or abnormal conclusion of the connection chain, artificial separation, and whether the connection is provided with the connection chain by the surrounding structure (finite power).

① The normal conclusion of the connection chain refers to a case where the hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacks are restored to the end of the connection chain, and ② abnormal conclusion status refers to a case where the hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacks are not restored to the end of the connection chain (if the metal pipe takes part in the hacker’s hacks of the gas outlet) and the metal pipe’s hacker’s hacks of the connection chain’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacker’s hacks, regardless of the conclusion of safety monitoring, can only be separated from the process of normal separation, but, in the case of the hacker’s hacker’s hacks, it is difficult for a person to leak gas due to gas leakage.

2) Results of appraisal and assessment by the State ( October 23, 2009): At the end of the connection chain and around the safety monitoring, it is presumed that the use of a specific tool for the removal of safety control in the connection chain or the destruction or trace thereof is not specific. Thus, it is impossible to discuss whether the above inspection alone used a tool for the removal of safety control. 3) The advisory report by the Director of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Scientific Investigation Assistance Team of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of Fire Safety at the end of 200: ① after leaving the upper end of the connection chain by artificial means, it is presumed that the upper end of the gas is separated from the outer strong, but ② after leaving the upper end of the connection, it is presumed that the upper end of the 200-round gas shock, it is presumed that the lower end of the 207-round consultation with the Defendant and the victim were not able to use the front end of the 20-round consultation with the Defendant without any specific method.

(B) Determination

1) According to the results of the appraisal by the state and water ( June 3, 2009), the causes of separation of gas connection chain with the gas connection outlet are possible, or two cases where people artificially separate them. As seen above, the Defendant and the victim used the gas siren without any special problems for a long time, and the gas leakage was not pointed out in the gas safety confirmation conducted before the fire of this case and 12 days from the fire of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the gas was not leaked in the initial gas siren. Accordingly, the conclusion of the gas connection chain is reasonable, and once, the conclusion status of the connection chain with the gas connection outlet of this case is not restored or pushed up until the end of the connection chain between the connection chain during an abnormal conclusion condition (2) and (1) in the case where metal control center can both be presented [in the case where it takes place at the nes (h) of the connection chain of the connection chain] and (2) in the case of the appraisal with the State.

2) However, if gas leakage connection with the records of this case is recognized as follows, ① gas leakage connection (if gas leakage connection is not possible on a 0-year basis, it is difficult to separate gas leakage connection with the 0-year gas source, ② Safety connection with the 1-year gas source connected with the 0-year gas source (if gas leakage connection is not possible on a 0-year basis, it is difficult to separate gas leakage connection with the 1-year gas source connected with the 1-year gas source connected with the 1-year gas source connected with the 7-year gas source connected with the 1-year gas source connected with the 2-year gas source connected with the 1-year gas source (if it is not possible to separate gas leakage connection with the 1-year unit, it is impossible to install a 7-year connecting with the 7-year unit connected with the 1-year unit.)

검사는 ' 누설된 가스의 착화시간은 약 1시간 정도 ' 라는 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 화재수사팀의 ' 대전 00동 가스폭발사건 자문보고서 ' 에 기초하여, 이 사건 가스누출이 화재시각 ( 17 : 45경 ) 으로부터 약 1시간 전인 16 : 30 ~ 17 : 00경 시작되었다는 취지로 주장하므로, 아래에서는 위 자문보고서를 비롯한 관련 증거를 검토하여 보기로 한다 . ( 나 ) 관련 증거의 검토1 ) 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 화재수사팀의 ' 대전 00동 가스폭발사건 자문보고가 ) 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 화재수사팀 소방장 김EE은, 노르웨이 긱스콘 ( Gexcon ) 사의 화재 시뮬레이션 프로그램인 ' 플랙스 ( Flacs ) ' 를 이용하여 2012. 4. 5. ( 이하 ' 1차 시뮬레이션 ' 이라 한다 ), 2012. 5. 16. ( 이하 ' 2차 시뮬레이션 ' 이라 한다 ) 2차례에 걸쳐 이 사건 화재현장의 발화지점 및 가스누설시간을 판단하였다 .

B) Under the advisory report, the results of the 2000 Formula analysis (1) are closed at the bottom of the gas siren or presumed to be a little open state. (2) In the 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 2nd 5 meters between the upper part and the lower part, but the actual household is presumed to have a lot of external leakages at the 4th 4th m of the 4th 4th 2nd 4th 4th 2nd 7th 7th 7th 2nd 7th 7th 2), it is presumed to have reached the range of gas leakage (explosion) after combustion (explosion). (3) In the case of leakage of more indoor gas to the outside, it is presumed that the inside of the 1st 1st 5th 1st 000 m of the entire indoor gas leakage is presumed to have been low in the 1st 0th 1st m of the average.

(4) Although the accurate time of gas leakage cannot be measured, it is assumed that the gas that has been leaked for about one hour can be emitted from the gas siren (the third location) and the shape of gas that has been leaked to the ward can be displayed at the (fPA 921, Kirk).

다 ) 1, 2차 시뮬레이션을 기초로 한 자문보고서의 분석 결과에 대한 검토 ( 1 ) 위 자문보고서상 1, 2차 시뮬레이션에 대한 분석 결과는 ' 1시간 동안 가스를 누출시킬 경우 가스렌지에서 착화가 가능하고, 거실로 가스가 확산되어 섬광화재의 형상을 나타낼 수 있다 ' 는 것인데, 위 각 시뮬레이션은 현장의 구조, 가스의 조성비 및 가스의 누설위치 외에는 그 전제 조건이 실제 이 사건 현장과 동일하다고 보기 어려워 이를 그대로 채용하기 어렵다. 우선 ① 1, 2차 시뮬레이션은 가스누출량이 약 8ℓ / min임을 전제로 하였으나, 이 사건 현장 ( 중간밸브가 1 / 2 정도 열린 상태 ) 에서의 실제 가스누출량을 확인할 만한 아무런 자료가 없는 점 [ 한국가스안전공사의 수사협조의 뢰회신에 따르면, ' 가스메타를 이용하여 질소가스 및 유사한 시설로 실험하였을 때, 중 간밸브가 45° 열려진 상태에서 LNG 가스의 누출량은 8. 2 ℓ / min 정도이다 ' 라는 것이나 , 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 화재수사팀의 가스화재감정서 ( 가스누출량 추정 등 분석 ) 에 따르면, ' 퓨즈콕 자체의 유격에 의해 중간밸브가 45° 열려진 상태라는 것만으로 정확한 유량을 측정하기가 어렵다 ' 는 것이고, ' 현재 ( 2014년 ) 의 설비로 실험하였을 경우의 평균 값은 10. 58 ℓ / min ( 최소 9. 1 ~ 최대 12. 7 ) ' 이라는 것이어서 각 실험결과에 상당한 차이가 나는 점에 비추어 선뜻 위 실험결과에 따른 누출량을 이 사건 현장에서의 가스 누출량과 동일하다고 판단할 수 없다 ], ② 또한 2차 시뮬레이션은 서랍이 완전히 닫힌 상태에서, 상단서랍과 하단서랍 사이에 존재하는 5mm의 누설틈에서 가스가 외부로 누출됨을 전제로 실험한 것이나, 앞서와 마찬가지로 이 사건 현장에 존재하던 상단서랍과 하단서랍 사이의 간격이 전혀 확인된 바 없어, 5mm의 누설틈이 실제 현장상황과 동일하다고 보기 어렵고, 실제 현장의 경우 하단서랍이 상당히 ( 약 15 ~ 17cm ) 열려 있었던 점, ③ 이 사건 화재현장의 서랍은 서랍의 안쪽 길이가 싱크대 안쪽 길이보다 짧아, 서랍 뒤쪽과 싱크대벽 사이에 간격이 있는데, 마찬가지로 이러한 정황이 시뮬레이션에 반영되지 아니하였고, 위 자문보고서를 작성한 김EE 또한 이 법정에서 ' 서랍과 벽면 사이에 10cm 정도의 간격이 있다면 가스누출의 예상시간이 더 늘어날 수도 있다 ' 고 대답한 점 등을 고려하면, 위 시뮬레이션은 그 전제사실이 이 사건 현장과 동일하다고 보기 어려워, 그와 같은 기초하에 이루어진 누출시간에 관한 분석결과에 오류 가능성이 존재하므로 과학적 합리성이 담보되는 자료라고 보기 어렵다 . ( 2 ) 또한 ① 위 자문보고서는 2차 시뮬레이션을 기초로 하여 ' 5mm의 누설 틈이 존재할 경우 7분 만에 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위에 도달하고, 실제로는 서랍에 7개소 35mm ( 5mm x 7 ) 의 누설틈이 존재하므로, 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위에 도달하는데 49분 ( 7분 × 7 )이 소요된다 ' 고 분석하였는데, 누설틈의 면적과 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위에 도달하는 시간이 단순한 정비례 관계에 있는지 의문이 드는 점, ② 또한 위 자문보고서는 1, 2차 시뮬레이션을 기초로 ' 정확한 가스누설 시간은 측정할 수 없으나, 서랍이 열린 상태에서 1 % 농도의 가스가 실내 전체로 확산되는데 8분이 걸리고, 서랍이 닫히고 5mm의 누설틈이 있는 상태에서 가스렌지를 점화원으로 하여 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위에 도달하는데 49분이 걸리므로, 서랍장이 닫혀 있는 ( 약간 열린 ) 상태에서는 약 1시간 동안 가스가 누출시 가스렌지에서 착화가 가능하고, 거실로 확산된 가스가 섬광화재의 형상을 나타낼 수 있을 것 이다 ' 라고 결론지었는데, 위와 같은 결론은 전제가 다른 두 실험결과를 자의적으로 혼용하여 추론한 것이라, 그 결과를 선뜻 납득하기 어려운 점 [ 2차 시뮬레이션과 같이 서랍이 닫힌 상태에서 가스의 실내 확산속도는, 서랍이 열린 상태에서 실험한 1차 시뮬 레이션에서의 실내 확산속도와 같다고 보기 어렵고, 결론 부분의 ' 약간 열린 ' 상태라는 것이 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위를 형성하지 않는 1차 시뮬레이션의 ' 열린 상태 ' 와 어떠한 차이가 있는지 불명확하다 ], ③ 위 자문보고서를 작성한 김EE 또한 이 법정에서 ' 1차 시뮬레 이션의 경우 연소 ( 폭발 ) 범위가 형성되지 않았고, 2차 시뮬레이션의 경우 하단서랍에 굉장히 많은 폭발 압력이 걸린다는 문제가 생겼다. 이에 두 가지의 문제점을 해결하기 위해 2차 시뮬레이션에서 실시한 서랍 부분의 누설면적을 조금 많게 해서 실험을 한다 .

In light of the above, the 2000 Formula 1 and the 2000 Formula 2 were presumed to be an overall combustion as a result of gas leakage within the range of combustion (explosion). In light of the above, it seems that the 2000 Formula 1 and the 2000 Formula 3 were merely an overall presumption to solve problems that do not coincide with the on-site situation. ④ The 2000 Formula 1 were to confirm the initial point of combustion and the gas leakage time, and the 300 Form 1 were not a portable siren if the 2000 Form 1 were to be generated through the 100 Form 2. It is difficult to confirm that the 2000 Formula 1 was not an objective data on the premise that the 1000 Formula 2 was to have an additional data on the premise that the 2000 Formula 1 was to have an objective data on the premise that the 1000 Formula 3 was to have an objective data on the 10000.

2 ) 증인 강FF의 증언가 ) 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 검찰수사관 강FF는 이 법정에서 ' 이 사건 화재현장은 상층부에만 탄화흔적이 있는 것으로 보인다. 따라서 가스의 유속 ( 약 8Imin ) 과 이 사건 아파트의 주방의 체적 ( 약 19¹ ) 을 고려할 때, 주방 상층부 ( 약 1 / 3 ) 가연소하한계에 이르는 시간은 약 30분 정도인데, 일부 가스가 거실까지 확산된 점을 고려하면 가스누출시간은 약 50분 정도로 추정할 수 있다 ' 는 의견을 제시한 바 있다 .

B) However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above stronger is a person with professional knowledge or experience in gas diffusion or fire, and the basis for its presumption is not considered to be supported by scientific methods. In other words, the stronger calculated 30 minutes of the time up to the lowest limit of burning (explosion) by assuming the kitchen with a sealed space. Since the main room of the apartment of this case is opened in a wider space, such as connected with the living room, it is presumed that it would be about 50 minutes at the lowest limit of the (explosion). In light of the fact that the physical volume of the restaurant and the living room connected with the main room is about 80 square meters above the main body, it is difficult to accept the view that there is no objective gas leakage on the premise that there is no sufficient evidence to determine credibility of the apartment of this case, or that there is no objective gas leakage on the premise that it is open gas leakage at the site.

In full view of the above circumstances, there is no clear evidence showing that the gas leakage of this case started around about 16:30 to 17:00, which is about 1 hour prior to fire, and there is no scientific and accurate evidence, and there is no doubt as to whether the presumption of the beginning time of the gas leakage due to the above Formula 1 (the above evidence alone) can be deemed correct. Thus, it is difficult to presume that the gas leakage of this case started at about 16:30 to 17:0, as stated in the facts charged, as stated in the facts charged. (5) The defendant can be deemed to have existed in the apartment of this case around 30:30 to 17:00, which is about the beginning time of the gas leakage as described in the facts charged on March 11, 2008.

Furthermore, at around 16:30 to 17:00, the Defendant created a gas explosion environment by returning home to the instant apartment at the beginning time of gas leakage: (a) separating the gap in which there is no victim from the gas siren connected to the gas connection device; and (b) asserts to the effect that “the Defendant was entering the instant apartment with the victim, waiting for the victim to walk on the phone, waiting for the victim.” As such, the Defendant’s statement that can be seen as an important evidence among them, the Defendant’s text and telephone content, and the statement of related persons, etc. should be examined and seen as follows. (b) Determination is based on the relevant evidence.

1 ) 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, ① 피고인이 사건 당일 14 : 30경 피해자에게 “ 네, 4시 반 전에 갈게요. 설사해서 똥꼬 헐었어. 이따 봐 ” 라는 문자를 보낸 사실, ② 피고인이 사건 당일 병원에서 경찰관에게 제출한 메모지에는 ' 4시쯤에 귀가 ' 라고 기재되어 있고, 2008. 3. 23. 경찰에서는 ' 16 : 30경 ~ 16 : 40경 귀가하였다 " 고진술하였으며, 2008. 7. 22. AIG생명보험 주식회사에 제출한 문답서에는 ' 퇴근 오후 5시경 ', 2008. 9. 17. 금호생명보험 주식회사에 제출한 문답서에는 ' 17 : 00경 집에 도착 ' 이

In light of the fact that on November 20, 2008, the police made a statement that "not less than 5 cc," "at the time of the police," and on January 15, 201, the police made a statement that "at the time of the police 16:30 to 17:0", and on May 20, 201, the prosecutor returned home at the time of 16:40 to 17:0,00, respectively, and that "at the time of the prosecution : 16:40 to 17:0, the defendant was returned home at the time of 17:00, it is true that there is any doubt that the defendant is not yet having arrived at the apartment of this case.

2 ) 그러나 위 각 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정 즉, ① 귀가시각에 대한 피고인의 진술은 앞서 본 바와 같이 번복되는 면이 있기는 하나, 병원에서 제출한 메모지를 제외하고는 대부분 17 : 00를 전후하여 귀가하였다는 것이고, 시간대를 정확하게 특정하고 있지는 못하여 피고인이 당시의 귀가시각에 대하여 분명히 기억하지 못하고 있는 것으로 볼 여지도 있는 점, ② 피고인은 이 사건 화재로 인하여 실제 화상을 입고 병원에 입원하여 치료를 받기도 하였는데, 그러한 상황에서 특이할 것이 없는 귀가시각에 관하여 정확히 기억한다는 것은 쉽지 않을 것으로 생각되는 점, ③ 한편 가스누출 시작시간대와 관련하여 피고인의 귀가시각이 쟁점이 된 것은 앞서 본 대검찰청 과학수사담당관실 화재지원팀의 자문보고서가 제출된 2012. 5. 16. 이후이므로, 피고인이 그 전에 굳이 귀가시각과 관련하여 거짓말을 하려 들 아무런 이유가 없어 보이는 점, ④ 이 사건 아파트 출입문 및 엘리베이터에는 출입 사실을 확인할 수 있는 CCTV가 설치되어 있었고, 충남도시가스의 직원 및 일부 경찰관들이 이를 확인하기도 하였으며, 이 사건 이후 상당기간 그대로 보존되어 있었는바, 피고인이 처음부터 CCTV를 확인하면 간단히 밝혀질 사실에 대하여 굳이 허위의 사실을 말할 필요가 없다고 생각되는 점 ( 이후 CCTV는 수사기관에 의하여 별도의 보존조치가 이루어진 바 없이, 보존기간 경과로 삭제되었다 ), ⑤ 수사보고 ( 204동 대표 서GG의 진술 청취 보고 ) 의 기재에 의하면, ' 이 사건 아파트 204동에 거주하는 서GG은 아내로부터 사고 직전 죽은 사람이 근처 슈퍼마켓에서 장을 봤다는 말을 들었다 ' 는 것이고, 정HH에 대한 검찰진술조서의 기재에 따르면, 이 사건 아파트 관리소장인 정HH은 ' 누군가로부터 들었는지 잘 기억은 나지 않지만, 사고로 죽은 젊은 새댁이 사고가 난 저녁에 손님을 초대해서 음식을 대접하기 위해서 장을 보고 왔다. 음식물을 만들기 위한 장보따리를 들고 있었다는 소문을 들었다 ' 는 것으로, 위 각 진술은 최초 진술자가 누구인지조차 확인되지 않은 소문 내지 전문에 불과하여 오류의 가능성이 다분하므로 그 신빙성을 선뜻 인정하기 어렵고, 피해자가 15 : 00경 이 사건 아파트 상가에 위치한 ' 심◆◆ 미용실 ' 에 들렀다가 다시 집에 돌아가는 과정에서 장을 보았을 가능성도 있으며, 시간의 인지에 대한 개념이 사람마다 다른 점을 고려하여 볼 때, 위와 같은 목격사실을 ' 사고 직전 ' 이라고 표현하였을 가능성이 충분히 있어 보이는 점, ⑥ 피고인이 16 : 58에 피해자에게 전화를 건 사실 ( 부재중 통화 ) 이 인정되므로 16 : 58경 피고인과 피해자가 서로 다른 장소에 있었을 것으로 보이기는 하나, 발신기지국에 의하여 확인되는 피고인의 최종위치는 ' 이 사건 아파트 밖인 대전 대덕구 □□동 ( 15 : 05경 ) 이고 촬영된 사진에 의하여 확인된 피해자의 최종 위치는 ' 이 사건 아파트 ( 15 : 58경 ) ' 인데, 그 사이 피고인이 귀가하고 피해자가 외출하였다 .는 두 가지 사실을 모두 뒷받침할 만한 자료가 없는 점, ⑦ 오히려 계속하여 이 사건 아파트 외부에 있다가 귀가하면서 피해자에게 16 : 58경 전화를 걸었다는 피고인의 변소가 훨씬 더 자연스러울 뿐 아니라, 피고인의 주장 ( 주차난 때문에 매번 귀가하기 전에 전화를 한다 ) 과 같이 2008년 3월경에는 거의 매일 17 : 00 ~ 18 : 00 무렵 피고인과 피해자의 통화 혹은 문자내역이 확인되는 점, ⑧ 검찰이 주장하는 것처럼 피고인이 가스폭 발환경을 조성한 다음 피해자의 위치를 확인하기 위하여 16 : 58경 피해자에게 전화를 건 것이라면, 피해자가 전화를 받을 때까지 통화를 시도하여야 함에도 1회의 부재중통화로 그친 점, ⑨ 또한 그러한 상황이라면 피고인은 처음부터 수사기관에서 16 : 58경 이후에야 귀가하였다는 계획적인 변소를 하여야 할 것으로 보임에도, 위와 같이 귀가 시간에 관하여 일관되지 못한 진술을 하였는데, 이는 공소사실 기재와 같이 치밀한 범행을 계획한 범인의 행동으로는 보이지 않는 점 등을 고려하여 보면, 피고인이 16 : 58경 이 사건 아파트 밖에서 피해자에게 전화를 건 다음 17 : 00경 이후에 이 사건 아파트에 귀가하였을 가능성이 충분하여 보이고 ( 주차장에서 이 사건 아파트까지는 2분 이상 이 걸릴 것으로 보인다 ), 앞서 본 사정만으로는 결국 피고인이 검찰이 주장하는 가스누출 시작시간대인 16 : 30 ~ 17 : 00경 이 사건 아파트에 있었다고 단정하기 어렵다 . ( 6 ) 피고인이 이 사건 화재 당시인 17 : 40경 ~ 17 : 45경 이 사건 아파트 밖에 있었는지 여부 ( 가 ) 쟁점

On the other hand, the prosecutor stated that “the Defendant was aware of the fact that he did not wish to take away food waste to the victim at the time of the instant fire, and that he was subject to fire accidents after entering the instant apartment after the occurrence of fire.” The Defendant argued to the effect that he was aware of the fact that he was released from the toilet and fire during the investigation agency to the point of view, and that he was released from the apartment house through the entrance of the present door, and that “the Defendant was dissatisfied with the fact that he was not aware of the fact that he was able to take away from the toilet before the entrance of the instant apartment, and that he was unable to view that the Defendant was outside the apartment house of 17:40 to 17:45 at the time of the instant fire, and that he was not aware of the fact that he was able to take away from the entrance of the instant apartment house of 1:2), and that he was aware of the fact that he was able to take out the instant apartment house of 1:1) after the instant apartment house of 1:1).

는 말을 하였다 " 고 진술한 사실을 인정할 수 있는데, 이에 의하면 피고인이 이 사건 화재 직전 이 사건 아파트 바깥에 있었던 것이 아닌가 하는 의심이 드는 것은 사실이다 . 2 ) 그러나 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정 즉, ① 경비원 김JJ은 이 법정에 출석하여, " 근무하는 동안 관리소장과 함께 경찰관, 충남도시가스 직원들이 CCTV를 보러 1번 ~ 2번 왔었는데, 나는 사람들에 가려서 뒤에 있거나, 관리소장이 바깥에 나가 있으라고 해서 정확히 모니터를 보지는 못했다. 다만 CCTV를 보는 사람들이 음식물쓰레기통 들고 올라 가네라고 하니까, 궁금해서 어깨 너머로 언뜻 음식물쓰레기통을 들은 모습을 본 것 같다 " 고 진술하였는데 , 결국 김JJ은 당시 경비실 바깥에 있어 CCTV 화면을 정확히 보지 못했던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 또한 위 김JJ은 이 법정에서 " 당시 충남도시가스 직원들과 경찰관이 음식물 쓰레기통 가지고 남자는 내려오네, 조금 있다가 버리고서는 바로 올라갔구먼, 그리고 나서 사건이 난 거구먼이라고 하는 말을 들었다 " 고 하나, 이는 전문진술에 불과하여 증거능력이 없는 점, ③ 김LL은 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 " 피고인이 119 응급차에 탄이후, 주변에 있던 60살 정도 되는 할머니가 저 집 신랑이 조금 전에 음식물 쓰레기를 버리고 올라가는 것 봤는데 " 라는 말을 한 것을 들었다고 진술하였고, 이 사건 아파트 2001호 주민도 남편이 음식물 쓰레기를 버렸다는 말을 들었다고 진술하였으나, 이는 최초 진술자가 누구인지 확인조차 할 수 없어 그 신빙성을 선뜻 인정하기 어려운 점 , ④ 반면 경찰관과 충남도시가스 직원들이 CCTV를 확인한 사실이 인정됨에도, 자신이 위와 같은 장면을 직접 보았다는 사람이 아무도 없고, 오히려 당시 CCTV를 확인한 충남도시가스 직원 오MM은 " 2008. 3. 8. 부터 사건 당일까지의 CCTV를 확인하였는데, 화재 후 피고인이 엘리베이터를 타면서 주저앉는 모습을 보았고, 피고인이 쓰레기봉투를 버리러 갔다가 다시 타는 장면은 기억나지 않는다 " 고 진술한 점, ⑤ 나아가 검사의 주장에 따르면 피고인은 피해자를 살해하기 위하여 가스폭발상황을 조성한 후, 사고로 위장하기 위하여 화장실에는 자신이 반신욕을 하는 중이었던 것과 같은 상황을 가장하여 놓고, 피해자에게는 음식물쓰레기를 버린다고 이야기하고, 화재가 발생하기까지 이 사건 아파트 밖에서 기다리고 있었다는 것으로, 대단히 계획적이고 지능적인 범인이라고 보아야 할 것인데, 이러한 지능적인 범인이 엘리베이터를 타고 음식물쓰레기를 버림으로써 CCTV에 찍히고, 주변 주민들에게 목격될 수 있도록 행동한다는 것은 이해가 가지 않는 점, ⑥ 피고인의 상의나 음식물쓰레기통이 이 사건 아파트 주변이나 화재현장에서 발견되지도 않은 점, ⑦ 한편 피고인이 화재 이후 이 사건 아파트 현관문에서 나온 다음 쓰러지는 것이 오NN 등 3명에게 목격되었고, 당시 피고인은 상의, 팬티 및 신발은 착용하지 않고 트레이닝복 바지만 입은 상태였으며, 머리가 타고 얼굴과 머리 , 상체에 그을음이 있었던 점, ⑧ 화재 직후 이 사건 아파트의 주방과 거실을 제외한 나머지 방들은 문이 닫혀 있어 연소나 그을음의 흔적이 전혀 없었던 것에 반하여, 화장실에는 전체적으로 그을음이 깔려 있는 상태였는데, 그 안의 욕조에는 반신욕시 이용할 수 있는 후드와 방석이, 후드 위에는 오토바이 잡지가 놓여 있었고, 욕조 안에는 물이 채워진 채 배수구가 닫혀진 상태였고, 욕조와 벽면 사이의 평평한 부분에는 그을음 이 얼룩진 형태로 되어 있었던 점, ⑨ 비록 화재 이후 측정한 욕조의 물높이가 반신욕을 하기에 다소 낮아 보이는 12cm이기는 하였으나, 그을음의 흔적에 비추어 화재 당시보다는 물높이가 약간 낮아진 것으로 보이고, 피고인의 체격이나 자세 등에 따라 반드시 위 물높이에서 반신욕이 불가능하다고 보기는 어려운 점, ① 피고인이 후송될 당시 촬영된 사진에 의하면 피고인의 머리에 물기가 없이 그을려 있고, 얼굴에 비하여 가슴 부분에 그을음이 상대적으로 적게 묻어 있는 사실은 인정되나, 이 사건 화재 현장의 온도 등을 고려하여 보면, 피고인이 머리를 감았다고 하더라도 순간적인 열기에 머리가 그을리면서 건조되었을 가능성이 충분해 보이고, 위 사진에 의하면 피고인을 후송하던 사람이 피고인의 가슴 부분을 잡고 피고인을 119 구급차로 옮기는 모습이 확인되는데, 그 과정에서 가슴 부분의 그을음이 닦인 것으로 보이는 점, ① 피고인의 아버지인 고00은 이 사건 화재로부터 약 6분 전인 17 : 39경 피고인에게 전화를 걸었고 , 당시 피고인으로부터 반신욕 중이라는 말을 들었다고 진술하고 있는 점, ② 피고인은 " 반신욕을 하다가, 불이 꺼지는 바람에 처음에는 저녁에 오기로 한 이PP이 장난을 치는 것으로 생각하였고, 불을 켜달라고 하였으나, 켜주지 않아 화장실 안에 있던 트레이 닝복 바지를 입고, 문 밖에 있던 팬티를 집기 위해 문을 열었는데, 매캐한 연기가 나서 문을 닫고 잠시 생각을 하다가, 문을 열고 나왔고 연기에 눈을 뜰 수 없는 상태에서 피해자를 부른 다음 중문을 열려고 하였으나 잘 열리지 않았고, 겨우 열고 나가 현관문을 열려고 하였는데 걸쇠가 그대로 있는 것을 보고 피해자가 집안에 있는 것을 알았으나, 연기 등으로 이 사건 아파트를 빠져나올 수밖에 없었다 " 라고 진술하고 있는데 , 그 진술이 매우 구체적이고 생생하여 실제로 경험한 것에 기반한 것으로 보이고, 그 정황 등에 특별히 부자연스럽다고 생각되는 부분이 없는 점, ③ 이 사건 화재로 인한 소훼의 정도와 규모에 비추어 ( 연소로 인한 매연이 상당하였던 것으로 보이고, 소방관들 이 17 : 50경 이 사건 아파트에 도착하여 17 : 55경 화재를 초진한 점을 볼 때, 도착 당시 연소가 부분적으로 진행 중이었던 것으로 보인다 ), 피고인이 이 사건 아파트 밖에서 대기하고 있다가, 화재 이후 다시 이 사건 아파트 안으로 들어가 화장실 문을 열어 그을음이 들어가도록 하고, 다시 이 사건 아파트 밖으로 나오기는 쉽지 않아 보이는 점, ① 한편 피고인이 사건 당일 경찰관에게 제시한 메모지에는 ' 물소리 말고는 못 들었다 ' 고되어 있고, 2008. 3. 23. 경찰에서는 ' 멀리서 싸이렌 소리가 들려 대수롭지 않게 생각했다 ' 고 되어 있으며, 2011. 5. 20. 에는 ' 경보음은 듣지 못했고, 중문을 열 때 들은 것 같다 ' 고 진술하는 등 반신욕 당시 바깥의 소리를 들었는지에 관하여 일관된 진술을 하지 못하고 있기는 하나, 당시 화장실 문이 닫혀 있었던 점을 고려하여 보면, 피고인이 신경을 쓸 만큼 특이한 소리 ( 사이렌이나 경보기 ) 를 제대로 듣지 못하였거나 기억하지 못하고 있을 가능성이 있고, 위 각 진술도 전체적으로 그러한 취지에서 이해할 수 있는 점, ⑤ 검찰은 ' 피고인이 이PP의 방문 ( 18 : 00 ) 을 얼마 남기지 않은 상황에서 반신욕을 한다는 것도 이례적이고, 바지와 핸드폰을 화장실 안으로 가져간 것도 의심스럽다 ' 는 것이나, 피고인이 반신욕을 시작한 시간은 그 주장에 따를 경우 화재 당시로부터 약 30분 전이고, 화재 당시는 이PP의 방문으로부터 15분이라는 충분한 시간을 남기고 있었던 시점이므로, 그 시각에 반신욕을 하는 것이 반드시 이상하다고 보이지 않을 뿐만 아니라, 핸드폰이 든 바지를 화장실 안으로 가져가는 행동이 납득할 수 없을 정도로 이례적인 행동이라고 보이지도 않는 점 등에 비추어, 이 사건 공소사실 기재와 같이 피고인이 이 사건 화재 당시인 17 : 40경 ~ 17 : 45경 이 사건 아파트에 없었다고 단정하기 어렵고, 오히려 피고인의 변소와 같이 이 사건 화재 당시 이 사건 아파트 화장실에서 반신욕을 하던 중, 화재로 인한 단락으로 정전이 되자 밖으로 나와 화재사실을 인지하고 , 이 사건 아파트 밖으로 빠져 나왔다고 볼 가능성이 있어 보인다 . ( 7 ) 범행동기와 관련하여 ( 가 ) 쟁점

The prosecutor asserts to the effect that the defendant was killed for the purpose of receiving the insurance money, while the defendant was dissatisfyed with the victim who is the defendant's wife, and then the prosecutor examines the following.

(B) Relationship between the Defendant and the Victim

1 ) 이 사건 기록에 의하면, ① 피해자의 어머니인 조QQ는 이 법정에서 " 평소 피고인은 바닥에서, 피해자는 침대에서 따로 잘 정도로 사랑이 식어 있었고, 피고인이 2007년 7월 ~ 8월경 피해자에게 부부싸움 중 죽여 버리겠다. 죽기 싫으면 짐 싸서 나가라고 하였으며, 이후 이 사건 아파트를 방문하여 보니 ' 남편의 더러운 성질을 안 건드리도록 노력하겠다 ' 는 각서가 붙어 있었다. 사고 발생 2일전에는 피고인과 피해자를 함께 만났을 때 피고인이 매우 살벌하고 차갑게 대했고, 피해자로부터 ' 엄마, 남편이 바람나지 않도록 기도해 주세요 ' 라는 이야기를 들었다. 또한 피고인은 피해자의 이혼경력 이 밝혀질 경우, 아버지로부터 질책을 받고 이복형에 비하여 인정을 받지 못하여 회사 경영이나 상속문제에 있어 불리한 상황에 처할 것이 부담되어, 결국 피해자를 살해한 것 같다 ' 고 진술한 사실, ② 피해자의 아버지인 권RR도 ' 피고인과 피해자가 결혼 이후 돈 문제, 성격 차이 등으로 인하여 계속 싸움을 하였다 ' 는 취지로 진술한 사실, ③ 피해자의 대학동기인 이SS은 이 법정에서 ' 피고인과 피해자가 결혼 후 자주 다투고, 폭행도한 번 있었던 것으로 알고 있다 ' 고 진술하고 있는 사실을 인정할 수 있다 . 2 ) 그러나 한편 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, ① 피해자와 매우 가깝게 지냈던 이PP은 경찰에서 ' 피고인과 피해자가 신혼부부라 사이가 좋았다. 가까이 지낸 입장에서 내가 보기에는 피고인과 피해자는 조금 다혈질이라 싸우기는 하였지만, 싸우고 난 뒤 서로 화해하고 좋게 지낸 것으로 알고 있다. ' 고 진술한 점 , ② 피고인과 피해자가 사건 전날 피고인의 어머니를 모시고 함께 식사를 하였고, 사건 당일 역시 부부동반으로 친구들을 만나 저녁모임을 하기로 예정하였을 뿐만 아니라, 피고인과 피해자의 통화내역 빈도, 문자내용 등 피고인과 피해자의 관계가 그리 나쁘지 않았다고 판단할 만한 자료도 보이는 점 [ 수사보고서 ( 모바일 분석보고 첨부 ) 에 따르면 , 이 사건 무렵 피고인과 피해자는 거의 매일 1차례 이상 통화하고, 수차례 문자를 주고 받았으며, 평범한 신혼부부 사이에서 오갈 만한 문자내용이 확인될 뿐이고, 달리 피고인과 피해자의 사이가 악화되었음을 추단할 만한 내용이 보이지는 않는다 ], ③ 피해자가 부모에게 하는 피고인에 대한 불평이나 불만은 일시적으로 다소 과장되었거나, 상대방 측에서 심각하게 받아들였을 여지도 있는 점, ④ 조QQ 본인의 진술에 의하더라도 조QQ가 갑상선암 수술을 받은 이후 서울에 있는 병원에 항암치료를 받으러 갈 때마다 피고인이 데려다 주었다는 것인데, 만약 그 주장과 같이 피고인과 피해자의 관계가 매우 악화되어 있었다면, 상대방의 부모를 모시고 매번 병원을 갔을지 다소 의문이 드는 점, ⑤ 또한 피해자의 이혼경력과 관련하여도, 피해자의 부모에 따르면 피고인이 결혼 전에 그러한 사실을 충분히 알고 있었다는 것인데, 비록 피고인이 자신의 부모에게 그러한 사실을 숨긴 채 결혼하였다고 하더라도, 그러한 사실을 알고서도 2년이 넘는 오랜 교제기간 후에 결혼한 피고인이 갑자기 자신의 부모에게 그러한 사실이 밝혀질까봐 피해자를 살해하려 마음먹었다는 것도 선뜻 납득이 가지 않는 점, ⑥ 위와 같은 사정에 비추어 피고인과 피해자의 사이가 서로 극단적으로 미워하거나 나빠져 있던 상태는 아닌 것으로 생각되는 점 등을 고려하여 볼 때, 앞서 인정한 사실만으로는 피고인에게 공소사실과 같이 피해자를 계획적으로 살해할 만한 범행의 동기가 있었다고 보기에 부족하다 .

(C) The records of this case are as follows: ① on December 16, 2007, the defendant is entitled to receive insurance premium of 10 billion won; ② on December 16, 2007, 'insured' and 'the beneficiary at the time of entrance' through TT; 'the beneficiary at the time of death'; 'the beneficiary at the time of death' 'the amount of insurance premium of 176,610 won per month; 10 million won per accident (the amount of subscription: 20 million won); 'the amount of insurance premium of 'the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of 'the amount of insurance premium of 20 billion won'; 'the amount of insurance premium of 'the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of death at the time of 'the amount of insurance premium of 200 billion won

의 특약이 포함된 ( 무 ) Cyber퍼펙트정기보험을 체결하였고, 같은 날 ' 피보험자 ' 및 ' 입원장해시 수익자 ' 는 피해자, ' 만기시 및 사망시 수익자 ' 는 피고인, 보험료는 월 36, 500원으로 하고, 주계약 가입금액은 2억 원으로 하되, 수술보장 ( 가입금액 : 1, 000만 원 ), 암진단 ( 1, 000만 원 ), 입원 ( 1, 000만 원 ), 재해사망 ( 5억 원 ) 의 특약이 포함된 ( 무 ) Cyber퍼펙 트정기보험을 체결한 사실, ③ 위 각 보험료는 피고인의 정기적인 수입에 비하여는 적지 않은 금원이고, 피고인이 단기간 내에 재해사망 특약이 포함된 보험에 가입할 만한 특별한 사정이 보이지는 않는 사실, ④ 피고인은 2008. 7. 9. AIG생명보험 주식회사에 보험금을 청구하여, 2008. 8. 21. 경 보험금 3억 원을 송금 받았고, 그 무렵 피해자의 아버지인 권RR에게 보험금을 주기로 한 사실, ⑤ 이에 따라 피고인은 3, 000만 원은 권RR의 계좌로 이체하고, 7, 000만 원은 자신의 명의로 통장과 직불카드를 만든 다음 권RR에게 주었으며, 2억 원은 피고인 명의로 된 MMF통장을 개설하여 권RR에게 주었으나, 이후 MMF 통장을 재발급받은 다음 2008. 8. 27. 부터 2억 원을 대부분 출금해 간 사실, ⑥ 피고인은 MMF 통장에서 보험금을 인출한 이유에 관하여, 금호생명에 대한 보험금청구 서류를 준비하는 과정에서 피해자의 제적등본을 떼다가 피해자의 이혼경력을 알게 되어 다시 보험금을 인출한 것이라는 취지로 주장하나, 피해자의 전 남편이었던 기UU, 이SS 등의 진술에 의하면 피고인은 결혼 전 이미 피해자의 결혼경력을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이고, 피고인이 피해자의 제적등본을 발급받은 것은 보험금을 인출한 이후인 같은 해 9월 22일인 점에 비추어, 피고인이 그와 관련한 거짓말을 하는 것으로 보이는 사실 등을 인정할 수 있는데, 위 인정사실에 따르면 피고인이 보험금과 관련하여 어떠한 부당한 동기를 가지고 있었던 것은 아닌가 하는 의심이 들기는 한다 . 2 ) 그러나 한편 이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정할 수 있는 사실 또는 사정에 비추어 다음과 같이 판단할 수 있다 .가 ) 보험가입권유 및 보험계약 체결 : 피고인은 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 ' 장모인 조QQ가 2007년 갑상선암으로 수술을 받게 되었고, 보험을 들어놓은 것이 없으니 너네들도 들으라고 권유하여 보험에 들게 되었다 ' 고 진술하고 있는데 , 실제로 피해자의 친모인 조QQ가 2007년 11월경 대전 세이유외과에서 갑상선암 진단을 받고 2008년 1월경 분당에 있는 서울대 병원에서 수술을 받은 점, 따라서 피고인으로서는 그 무렵 보험가입에 관심을 가지게 되었을 것으로 충분히 볼 수 있는 점, 피고인은 2007년 12월경 대덕고등학교 동창이자 보험설계사인 길TT에게 연락하여 자신과 아내인 피해자에 관하여 AIG 생명보험에 가입하게 되었던 점, 길TT는 ' 피고인이 당시 장모의장모의 갑상선암 갑상선암 이야 이야기를 하였고, 보험내용은 굉장히 평범한 것이며, 재해사망은 일반 사망을 보장하고 있는 주계약 보험료에 비하여 저렴하기 때문에 보통 2배수를 들도록한다 ' 고 진술하였던 점 등을 보면, 피고인이 그 무렵 보험가입의 필요성을 느끼고 자신 및 피해자에 대하여 AIG보험에 가입한 것이 반드시 부자연스러운 것이라고 볼 수만은 없다 .

In addition, even though the defendant did not know about the insurance premium based on the AIG life insurance, the defendant himself did not want to subscribe to it. However, since the defendant was aware of it through the Internet, it was argued that there was a much much much less insurance premium than that of the high school, the Dong and the insurance solicitor, and that there was only an additional subscription to it after the guarantee of the LT's insurance commission," and that LT stated that there was a proper book by asking about whether the defendant can pay the principal amount of the insurance premium for a few months, the defendant would be able to pay the insurance premium, at the time of concluding the insurance contract with the HT life life insurance, and the defendant was able to pay the insurance premium for a few months. However, it is too high time to think that the insurance premium would be collected, in light of the purport that the defendant subscribed to the above additional life insurance policy, not for the purpose of guaranteeing life insurance.

나 ) 보험의 보장금액 등 : 피고인이 자신 및 피해자를 피보험자로 하여 가입한 4개의 보험의 보험료는 합계 408, 090원에 이르는 적지 않은 금액이지만, 한편 이 사건 기록에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정 즉, ① 피해자를 피보험자로 하는 보험계약의 구성을 살펴보더라도, 이 사건 사고와 같이 재해사망을 위한 보험료는 6, 000원 , 10, 000원에 불과하고, 나머지는 암 등의 질병에 대한 보장을 위한 금액인 점, ② 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인이 보험가입에 관심을 갖게 된 경위는 조QQ의 갑상선 암 발병 때문인 것으로 보이는데, AIG 보험계약의 대부분이 암과 타 질병 보장을 위한 부분에 치중되어 있고, 금호생명 보험계약의 경우에도 암과 타 질병에 비해 재해사망 부분이 무리하게 되어 있다고 보이지는 않는 점, ③ 검사는 피고인의 월 수입에 비하여 보험료가 과다하다는 취지로 주장하고, 피고인의 객관적으로 확인되는 월 수입이 월 120만 원 ~ 138만 원 정도에 불과한 것으로 보이기도 하나, 피고인은 위와 같은 월 수입 이 외에도 BMW 모토라드에서 오토바이 악세사리를 판매하면서 어느 정도 ( 매월 20만 원 내지 30만 원 ) 정도의 수입을 추가로 얻었던 것으로 보이고, 그 외에도 상당한 재력가인 아버지 고00으로부터 필요할 때마다 돈을 받음으로써, 별다른 경제적 어려움 없이 생활하였던 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 실제로 피해자의 통장을 통하여 확인되는 입출금 금원만 하더라도, 피고인의 월급을 상회하는 것으로 보이나, 수시로 금원이 입금되어 월급 및 부수 수입을 넘는 지출을 계속적으로 하여 오면서도 채무를 부담하지 않은 사실에 비추어, 피고인과 피해자는 위와 같은 고00의 경제적인 지원을 통하여 피고인의 월급을 뛰어넘는 수준의 경제적 생활을 영위하여 온 것으로 보이는 점, ⑤ 따라서 단순히 확인되는 피고인의 수입에 비추어 위 보험료가 과다한 것이라고 단정하기는 어려운 점 등의 사정을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이에 비추어 보면 피고인이 처음부터 피해자를 살해하고 사고를 가장하여 보험금을 지급받고, 그 과정에서 피해자의 의심을 피하기 위하여 자신과 피해자를 피보험자로 하는 보험에 가입하였다기 보다는, 위와 같은 경위로 서로에게 암, 질병 등이 발생할 경우에 대비하여 보험에 가입하였다고 못 볼 것은 아니다 ( 한편 검사는 피고인이 금호생명과의 보험계약 당시 피해자의 전화번호를 일부러 잘못 알려준 점도 의심스럽다는 취지로 주장하나, 녹취록의 기재에 의하면 피고인은 최초 피해자의 전화번호를 ' 010 - 6280 - 7047 ' 이라고 이야기하였다가, 곧 전에 쓰던 번호를 잘못 알려 준 것 같다면서 ' 010 - 5123 - 7047 ' 로 정정하여 준 사실이 인정될 뿐이다 .

(8) With respect to other circumstances, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that there is little possibility for a third party to intrude into the apartment of this case in light of the location of the apartment of this case, the site situation, and the fact that there is no need for the victim to do so from others. However, in this case where the minimum objective data that could limit the gas leakage time zone have not been provided, as seen earlier, it is difficult to consider the possibility of a third party's intrusion due to the difficulty in specifying the time zone, and it is impossible to consider when the time zone is to exclude the third party's intrusion, when the third party has to intrude into the apartment of this case, and it cannot be concluded that the third party did not intrude into the apartment of this case in the absence of CCTV, and there is no reason for the third party to create the above situation, and it is also no subjective opinion that it is impossible to say that this is true.

(B) The consistency of the Defendant’s statement: Although the part of the Defendant’s statement is not consistent with the detailed part of the Defendant’s statement, including the time of returning home, the movement route on that day, the victim’s portable sirens, etc., but it is not easy for the Defendant to memory all of the daily contents. Moreover, it is thought that the Defendant could not memory the Defendant’s specific part of the case’s statement in detail in the circumstance of being hospitalized with pictures immediately after the occurrence of the fire, and that it is not related to the core part of the case’s case except for the time of returning home, the Defendant’s statement cannot be determined disadvantageously solely on the ground that such part is not consistent

(C) Circumstances in which the defendant was unable to attend a funeral: The records of this case revealed that the defendant was unable to send his image to a hospital at the time of the accident; however, there was no awareness or symptoms; despite the fact that the defendant was transferred to the Han River heart hospital located in Seoul and was hospitalized, and that the defendant was unable to attend the victim's funeral ceremony. However, according to the records of this case, the defendant was diagnosed by haln, etc. and received treatment at Daejeon Central Hospital; the doctor in charge at that time recommended the defendant to attend the funeral ceremony; (i) the defendant did not appear to have been hospitalized at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident; (ii) the defendant did not appear to have been hospitalized at the university hospital at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the death of the defendant, and (iii) the defendant was still aware of the defendant's symptoms at the time of the death at the time of the victim at the time of Han River hospital at around 37.

21. It is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant murdered a victim on the grounds of each of the above results of the examination.

(E) The prosecutor asserts to the effect that there is a lot of room to view the Defendant’s use of the Defendant’s portable sirens by talking about “the victim’s boomed breath in the absence of gas source.” However, it is difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that the Defendant was using the Defendant’s portable sirens at the time of the instant fire site as well as that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that the Defendant was using the Defendant’s portable sirens at the time of the instant fire. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant did not want to receive the Defendant’s portable sirens location at the time of the instant fire, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that the Defendant was using the Defendant’s portable sirens at the time of the instant accident, as well as that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that the Defendant’s portable sirens did not work as stated in the facts charged, and that it was difficult for the Defendant to easily understand that the Defendant was using the Defendant’s portable sirens as a means of fire explosion.

C. Judgment of the court below

(1) Relevant legal principles

In the case of a crime of murder, etc., statutory punishment, such as murder, may be found guilty only with indirect evidence without direct evidence, but such conviction requires careful determination by indirect evidence related to the facts charged. As such, if indirect evidence is found to constitute an indirect fact that serves as the premise of a principal fact, such indirect evidence should reach the extent that a reasonable doubt is not permitted, and there should be no inconsistency and conflict among one indirect fact, as well as indirect facts should be supported by logical, empirical, and scientific rules. In addition, the scientific evidence supporting the facts charged should be sufficiently binding in a case where it is recognized that all the facts premised on the premise of the facts are true and that the scientific evidence is proved to be true, and that the method of prosecution is deemed to be so extreme that there is no possibility of any error or omission, or that there is no possibility of any error, by a judge. To this end, the method of evidence should be submitted to a court through analysis of the standard inspection techniques approved by an appraiser with professional knowledge, technology, and experience, and there should also be no artificial manipulation, damage, or addition of materials in all processes (see, etc.).

In addition, in a criminal trial, the conviction should be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt about the defendant's conviction, it is inevitable to determine the defendant's interest (Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10895 Decided December 9, 2010). (A) First, with regard to whether the gas of this case is artificially separated from the gas of this case, there is a high possibility of artificial separation as stated in the judgment of the court below, but in light of the circumstances shown in the record, it is difficult to completely exclude the possibility of artificial separation by the offender without any reasonable doubt. Accordingly, it is difficult to accept the part that the court below concluded that the gas of this case is artificially separated from the gas of this case, and that there is a possibility that the gas of this case will not be artificial separation from the gas of this case.

② According to the records, around March 8, 2008, the employee of the LG Service Center visited the instant apartment for about 20 minutes, which was three days prior to the occurrence of the instant fire, and the fact that the instant gas siren is a LG electronic product is confirmed. Thus, it is difficult to view that the said LG Service Center’s employee is entirely exempt from the possibility that the instant gas pipeline would be placed in a state of abnormal conclusion in the course of performing any work in the instant apartment site by visiting the instant apartment site. 4)

③ In order to separate gas stuffs in the normal conclusion state where a safetying is installed, first of all, safety monitoring is required; second, it is necessary to separate them by manipulating the connecting string part; second, it is not necessary to distinguish between the state and water appraiser Park W. “In the court of the court of the court below, the connection between the gas stuffs of this case does not distinguish the burning of the safetying part. If heat is strong, it is deemed that the residues of the safetying may not be discovered.” In light of the foregoing, it is difficult to view that safety monitoring in the gas string part, which was in the connection of the gas string, is entirely burned to the fire of this case, and the possibility that the residues is not found.

In addition, in order to remove the above safetying, it is necessary to use the tools normally, and in that process, the scam of the use of the tools can remain, and as a result of the appraisal by the State and the water (as of June 30, 2009, the part of gas scams' connections with "the special characteristics of gas scams are not distinguished from the scam or the damaged scam of the tools)," and as a result of the appraisal by the State and the water (as of October 23, 2009), the results of the appraisal by the State (as of October 23, 2009, the gas scams’ connections are distinguished from the external river at the end of the scam of the scam of the gas scam, but it is presumed that the safety scamscam was completely excluded from the situation where the safety scam at the time of the fire in this case was not removed.

① First of all, the prosecutor held that it is difficult to calculate the beginning time of gas leakage based on the "Report on the Fire Investigation Team of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office", Daejeon 00-dong Fire Investigation Team of the Prosecutor's Office, but the above evidence is sufficiently recognized objectivity and rationality to calculate the starting time of gas leakage, and the appellate court asserts to the purport that it is a plan to submit additional evidence for specifying the starting time of gas leakage in an objective and accurate manner.

However, the court below's rejection of the probative value of the above evidence on the grounds of its stated reasoning is acceptable, and the court below's rejection of the probative value of the above evidence can be justified, and the probative value is limited as it is still insufficient to specify the time period of gas leakage, as stated in the facts charged, although the court below additionally conducted the examination of evidence on the witness Kim Young-young, Lee Jong-su, Lee Jong-su, each advisory meeting (0 XX, the Korea Gas Safety Corporation), the experimental opinion, and experimental video CD in relation to the specific time period of gas leakage at the request of the prosecutor at the request of the prosecutor at the trial.

② Next, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that “The court below determined that it is difficult to exclude the possibility of a third party’s criminal act, but the third party’s appearance with the new mixed father’s house was unlikely to deviate from gas sirens and artificially open an intermediary valve, and it does not seem that the defendant or the victim seems to have a special driving relationship with the arbitra group.” The prosecutor asserts to the effect that the third party’s intrusion is difficult.

However, as seen earlier, insofar as it is difficult to view that the gas source of this case is not artificially separated, the Prosecutor’s assertion on the premise of this different premise is difficult to accept. Moreover, the lower court’s ruling rejected the Prosecutor’s assertion that “it is difficult to specify a third party at the time of the crime, as it is difficult to specify the period of the beginning of the gas leakage and the CCTV, etc. are not secured,” and it does not seem to have actively recognized the possibility of intrusion by the third party.

③ Next, the lower court determined that “the gas leakage start time is not proven whether the Defendant was inside the apartment. However, in light of the Defendant’s initial statement and the details of telephone call, etc., the Defendant’s return time is acknowledged as between 00 to 16:30 on the day of the occurrence of the instant case.”

However, the court below reviewed all the evidence including the defendant's initial statement and telephone communications details, and determined that "it is difficult to conclude that the defendant was in the apartment of this case at around 30-17:00, the time period of gas leakage as stated in the facts charged, based on the circumstances in its reasoning," and that such judgment of the court below is acceptable in light of the records.

④ Next, the prosecutor held that it is difficult for the prosecutor to acknowledge that the Defendant was outside of the apartment at around 17:40 to 17:45 at the time of the instant fire, but the Defendant’s location at the time of the instant fire was not a core content at the time of the occurrence of the fire, and the prosecutor deleted the facts charged to the effect that “the Defendant was outside the apartment at the time of the occurrence of the fire” was “the last day of the lower court’

However, prior to the deletion of some facts charged as above, the prosecutor stated that “the Defendant did not take the victim’s desire at the time of the instant fire, but rather did not take the victim’s desire to throw away food waste, and that the apartment outside of the instant apartment is believed to have suffered a fire accident on the ground of the apartment after the fire occurred, and on the part of the victim’s desire to resist.” The prosecutor presented to the effect that “The Defendant was outside the apartment site at around 17:40 to 17:45, the time of the instant fire, asserting to the purport that it was a fire, and presented as an important indirect fact that the Defendant was outside the apartment site at around 17:40-17:

⑤ Finally, the prosecutor asserts that “it is difficult to view that there was no special motive to commit a crime in light of the content of the insurance contract and the amount of insurance premiums, etc., it is difficult to conclude that there was only the marital relationship between the defendant and the victim. However, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant was the victim. 61,640 won per month, the accident death insurance premium in the subscription form for insurance policy is the total of 109,00 won per month, and in particular, in the case of gold-free life insurance, the accident death insurance premium is 30,000 won, and the disease insurance premium in the cancer diagnosis is 7,400 won, and it is more emphasis on the disease death insurance than the disease examination. In light of the content of each insurance policy and the record of consultation with the employees of the insurance company, the defendant’s statement that the defendant thought that the insurance contract was substituted for the AI life insurance, unlike his own idea, it is difficult to understand that the defendant sustained the fact that the victim had been divorced by officially entering the victim’s marriage.

However, with respect to the assertion of a disaster, the lower court’s determination that “it is insufficient to view that the Defendant had the motive for committing a crime to kill the victim in a planned manner as stated in the facts charged” is acceptable in light of the records. (6) Unlike the chief director of the prosecutor’s office, the insurance premium under an agreement to guarantee the disaster of AIG life insurance related to the instant case is confirmed to be 6,00 won per month, and the insurance premium under an agreement to ensure the accident of metal life insurance is 10,000 won per month, and it is difficult to view that the above insurance is a major insurance with special agreement for the death of the disaster, and that the Defendant’s statement concerning the circumstances leading to the above insurance cannot be understood as impossible to obtain the payment of the insurance premium on the record. Lastly, it is difficult to view that the lower court’s determination that the Defendant, on the record, did not have any error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possibility of the Defendant’s murdering the victim as stated in the facts charged, such as gas explosion as the main sentence of the prosecutor’s.

Therefore, there is no reason to appeal by the prosecutor concerning the primary facts charged.

4. Judgment on the ancillary charges added at the trial

A. Summary of the facts charged

The defendant, around May 19, 2007, married with the victim's rightB (n, 27 years of age). On December 26, 2007, the defendant subscribed to an insurance contract whereby the defendant can receive insurance money of KRW 300 million ( KRW 100 million in the main contract, KRW 200 million in the special contract for death of a disaster) when the victim dies due to a disaster. On January 20, 2008, the defendant again entered into an insurance contract where the defendant can receive insurance money of KRW 700 million ( KRW 20 million in the main contract, KRW 500 million in the special contract for death of a disaster) when the victim dies due to an abnormal special agreement, but the fact that the defendant was able to receive insurance money of KRW 1 billion in the case of the victim's death due to a disaster.

(1) Murder

On March 16, 2008: between 00 to 17: 45, the Defendant killed the wife in an unsound manner at the home of the Defendant, 204, 000-dong Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon High Village Apartment 00-dong, Daejeon High Village Apartment 2000-dong, and killed the wife. (2) The death of the Defendant, the damage of the body, and the fire of the suspended structure.

피고인은 위와 같이 피해자를 살해한 후 피해자가 마치 주방에서 요리를 하던 중 가스폭발로 인하여 사망한 것처럼 꾸미기로 마음먹고 , 같은 일시, 장소에서 살해한 피해자를 위 집의 주방에 반듯이 눕혀놓은 후, 빌트인 가스렌지 옆에 휴대용 가스렌지를 올려놓고 그 위에 냄비를 올려놓은 다음 전기밥솥 내의 굴밥이 담긴 솥을 빌트인 가스렌지 위에 놓고 그 안에 있던 굴밥을 위 휴대용 가스렌지 위 냄비 위로 옮겨 담은 후 마치 피해자가 굴밥을 데우기 위하여 가스가 유출되는 것을 모르고 휴대용 가스렌지 또는 가스렌지를 사용하는 도중 가스 폭발사고가 발생한 것처럼 보일 수 있도록 꾸몄다 .

After that, the Defendant installed a device that enables the gas of LNG gas, such as any goods that can be caught or inflammable, in the vicinity of the LNG gas siren, and installed the sprink connected to the sprink, and separated the gas source connected to the sprink, and then shuts down each sprink, and opened the interim valve of the urban gas pipeline to 1/2 level to close the sprink, and then evacuates the sprink through the sprink in the sprink and the sprink, and then evacuates the sprink.

Accordingly, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the body of the victim, which is placed on the bank, by putting the said new or hot gas from a inflammable source prepared in advance; and (b) destroyed the body of the victim, which is located on the bank; and (c) destroyed some of the ceiling, walls, and objects of the above apartment building, which is a building in which people exist.

(3) On July 8, 2008, the Defendant filed a claim for insurance money as if he died of a fire, even though the Defendant murdered the above rightB, and it was affiliated with the Defendant’s employee on August 21, 2008, by receiving KRW 300 million from the national bank account (7301 - 01 - 050425) in the name of the Defendant from the employee of the said company to receive KRW 300 million. (b) On September 5, 2008, the Defendant received money from the victim gold Savings and Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on the ground that the Defendant did not request the Defendant to pay the insurance money from the Defendant’s account under the name of the said company (453069-5206079) as if the rightB died of the above rightB on the ground that it did not request the Defendant to pay the insurance money to the Defendant’s attempted insurance money.

B. Determination

The facts charged in the preliminary charge are as follows: “The Defendant murdered the victim by an unlawful means and had already died at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire.”

However, in light of the results of the examination and assessment with the State and the water (as of April 14, 2008, the result of appraisal that the characteristics of the other death except for a fire were not discovered), the State and the water appraiser YY, the ZZ of the Legal Research Institute of Seoul National University, and the UAB professors cannot be readily concluded that all relevant experts “the victim had already died at the time of the occurrence of the instant fire.” The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the premise, and there is no other evidence to prove (or the ancillary charge).

Therefore, it is judged not guilty of all the ancillary charges premised on the above facts.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because it is not reasonable, and the facts charged in the preliminary charge added in the trial constitute a case where there is no proof of the crime. Thus, the defendant should be acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant as to the primary charges in relation to the same kind of the facts charged in the preliminary charge

Judges Lee Jae-won

Judges Kim Gin-jin

Judge Park Jong-soo

1) The statement in the lower judgment appears to be a clerical error. “ March 8, 2009.”

2) 6° 94 of investigation records

3) Two categories of investigation records 900 pages 900 (internal documents of Chungcheong City Gas), 369 pages 369 of trial records (written statements of the court below by DaoM in the case of Cheongnam Urban Gas Personnel), and three categories of investigation records.

1223 pages (Report on investigation by the Korea Urban Gas Corporation)

4) The Defendant and the defense counsel stated that “LG electronic products among the electronic equipment in the apartment at the time of the instant case were only the instant gas sirens, TV and home screeners.”

Most of the electronic equipment, such as Samsung Electronic Products, was changed to the purport of "(1519 pages and 5 pages of trial records).

2) In the records, there is no trace of the investigation into which the employee of the above LG Service Center has carried out any work on any electronic equipment.

Therefore, the above employee is not working in the gas siren of this case, or in the process, the gas source is not placed in an abnormal state of conclusion.

In addition, according to the results of appraisal with country and water ( June 3, 2009), gas stuffs are in a state of abnormal conclusion, even if they are in a state of abnormal conclusion.

On March 9, 2008, the following day (before the occurrence of the instant fire) gas sirens around March 9, 2008

Therefore, it is difficult to view that the possibility of the abnormal conclusion of a contract is completely excluded solely on the ground that the gas source was used.

5) In order to recognize that the offender artificially separated gas stuff in the instant case, there is room for reasonable deliberation in all the above process.

must be proved to the extent that the safety monitoring is not artificially removed, and in the end, the gas source is not likely to be artificially removed.

It seems that it can not be concluded that a criminal is artificially separated by the criminal.

6) Court records 348 pages 348;

7) The lower court’s verification on the gas siren of the same model as the instant gas siren also uses a general drone, not a removal tool exclusive for safetying

As a result of removing safetying, the connection chain was found to be scams of tools (the trial record 1127 pages).

8) Six copies 155 of investigation records

19) 5° 63 of investigation records

10) If safety monitoring is not removed, it means that the cause of gas leakage can be located in another place.

11) The total insurance premium of the same insurance is KRW 133,240 per month, on pages 21, 198, on investigation records.

12) On 28 pages 1 of investigation records, the total insurance premium of the same insurance is KRW 36,500 per month.

13) As seen earlier, the Defendant appeared to have been witness three N et al. from the present door of the apartment of this case after a fire:

At the time, the Defendant was in the state of twitning without wearing panty and spanty, and the head, head, and upper body.

He had said fact.

14) Circumstances that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant had expertise or experience in gas explosion or searched relevant materials.

The records do not appear entirely.

15) Three copies 1118 and 380 pages 1, one, not more than the investigation records. The prosecutor also does not specify specific methods of murder or private person in the preliminary charge itself.

It has not been able to do.

16) Statement of prosecutorial statement about maximum YY (in investigation records, 1: 390 pages 390) and statement of fact-finding by professors of UAB medical research institutes at Seoul National University of Law and Medical Sciences and fact-finding inquiry report

(No. 19 August 2014) The written opinion of the trial of the professor of the Z (No. 19, 2014) of the Seoul National Institute of Law and Medical Sciences (No. 19, 2014)