209No153 (a) Robbery, etc.

(b) Injury by robbery;

(c) Special larceny;

(d) Violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act;

(e) Fraud;

(f) Violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act;

(g) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

1.(a)(c)(d). 000 (xx-xxxxxx); and

Gwangju Northern-gu

Nabju City of Original domicile

2.(a)(c). e.g. 00 (xxx-xxxx) and free from office;

Gwangju Northern-gu

5 5 5 14

3. 가.나 .다. 라. 마. 바 . 000 (xxxXXX-XXXXXxx), 무직

Residence Mymna City

Ham-nam, Hamyeong-gun

Both parties

Park stone

Attorney Park Jong-woo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Kang Sung-chul, Lee Jong-sung (Defendant 000,000)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Gohap246 (Separation), 307 (Joinder), April 30, 2009;

37(Joint), 412(Joint), 447(Joint), 448(Joint), 209, 6(Joint)

Resolution

October 1, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 00 and 000 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and six months and by a fine

300,000 won each shall be punished.

When the defendant 00 did not pay the above fine, the period of 50,000 won converted into one day;

Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse.

except that the defendant 00, 000 and the defendant 00 for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive

The execution of the above imprisonment with labor shall be suspended separately.

To order the defendant 00 to pay an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the charge of robbery and bodily injury by robbery shall be acquitted.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although the Defendants did not commit the crime of robbery and bodily injury resulting from robbery among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acknowledged that the Defendants committed the crime of robbery and bodily injury resulting from robbery. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The defendant 00

Defendant 00 committed the remaining crime except for the injury resulting from robbery and robbery among the facts charged in the instant case in a state of lacking the ability to discern things or make decisions with the third degree of mental retardation, but the lower court erred by misapprehending that Defendant 00 committed the crime under normal conditions, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(3) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below against the defendants (the defendant 00: imprisonment of six years, the defendant 00: imprisonment of five years and fine of 300,000, the defendant 00: 5 years) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentence imposed by the court below against the defendants is too uneasible.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion of mistake of facts

A. Summary of the facts charged

Defendants and 00 were aware of each other, and they were in the process of raising living expenses by making a straw straw, etc. at the Gecheon Terminal site in Gwangju. Defendants and 000 were in mind of having stolen other’s money and valuables by consenting to Defendant 000, while talking through Internet hosting site “00,000,” around April 16, 2008.

At around 21:30 of the same day, the Defendants and 000 enter a 'brupted horse', which is located near the scambling, from the scambling to the 'cambling park' in the vicinity of the scambling. Defendant 00 proposed that the 000 inside the scambling with the inside of the scambling-do, "where the scambling of the scambling-do, he had his human resources four, and the scambling-out, and the 00 others and the remaining Defendants agreed to enter the scambling-out and the scambling-out with the scambling-out prepared in advance and show the scambling-out to the scambling-out, and the 000-day and the 000-day and the 000-day and the 000-day and the 000-day.

At around 23:30 on the same day, Defendants and 00 escaped from a taxi on a daily basis without paying the taxi cost, after arriving at the shooting distance of the Malaysia located in the vicinity of 000 (30 years of age) and 00 (34 years of age) residing in the Macheon-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, and without paying the taxi cost. Around 23:30 on the same day, the Defendants and 00 went through a public telephone room located in the vicinity of the Gu Songcheon-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seoul, and checked the criminal plan, such as checking the criminal implements prepared for about 10 minutes in the vicinity of the house.

After that, around 00:10 on April 17, 2008, Defendant 00 entered more than the victim's house with the exception of Defendant 00 on the strings, etc., and Defendant 000 enter more than the victim's house with the victim's house strings, Defendant 000 on the strings of the house strings, with the victim's house strings, and opened a boomd window with the victim's house strings, with the victim's house strings, and 00 and 00 strings following the victim's house strings, and 00 strings the victim's house strings and 00 strings into the victim's house with the victim's house strings, but the victim's 00 strings and 000 strings out of the victim's house strings.

As the victims give up their resistance due to the above violence, 000 won of the victim 000 on his own knife, and 200,000 won in cash on his knife and 000 won in the victim's knife. The defendant 000 sustained 112,000 won in cash on his knife and 112,000 in cash on his knife, 70,000 won in cash on his knife, 112,000 won in cash on his knife (70,000 won) and 5 credit cards in knife with the defendant 00. The victim 00 suffered from knife knife and knife knife in his knife and died from that knife in his knife.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with 000 victims to assault and take money by force, and caused the death of 000 victims due to the breadth, and inflicted an injury on 000 victims.

B. The judgment of the court below

The court below found the witness guilty of all the charges by adopting as evidence the statements in the court below's decision of 00, the prosecutor's self-examination protocol against the defendant 000, each statement in the police's written statement about 000,000,000,000, and each statement in the police's written statement about the police's written statement about 00, the body's written statement about the body's written statement, the body's written response (victim's 00), the body's written response to the fact-finding report, each investigation report (so, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00), the scene's map, on-site map, and photographic name, etc.

C. Defendants’ legal actions

(A) Defendant 00,000’s lawsuit

Defendant 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, 00, 000, 000, 00, 000, 00, 000, 00, 00, 000, 00, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000,000, 000,000, 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,00,00,00,00,00,00.

(B) Defendant 00’s legal action

Defendant 00 was located in the city of Incheon, Seoul, and 00 copies of the charged charge at around the day of the crime. Defendant 000, 000, 000, and 000 were fluord with them around the time of the crime of this case and moved to Seoul around April 2007. Accordingly, Defendant 00 also had no relation with the crime of robbery and robbery of this case.

D. Determination of party members

(1) Evidence and admissibility corresponding to the facts charged

The direct evidence that corresponds to the above facts charged include each statement of the interrogation protocol of 000 prepared by the judicial police officer and the prosecutor, each statement of 000 in the court below, each statement of 000 written statement, each statement of the interrogation protocol of 000 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of the interrogation protocol of 000 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of the interrogation protocol of 000 prepared by the prosecutor about 000 prepared by the prosecutor, each statement of the interrogation protocol of 000 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of the interrogation protocol of 00 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of 00 prepared by the interrogation protocol of 100 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of 00,000 prepared by each statement of 1,000 prepared by each prosecutor (3), each investigation report of 00 prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of 1,000 prepared by each investigation report (any specific place of crime related to sect, etc.).

As to the admissibility of direct evidence above, since the defendant 00 denied the contents of each protocol of examination on the defendant 00 written by himself/herself and the confession at the police stage, each of the above evidence is inadmissible as to the defendant 00, and the defendant 00 denied the significance and contents of the protocol of examination on the defendant 00 prepared to the effect that the confession was made at the police stage. The defendant 00 denied the voluntariness of each protocol of examination on the defendant 00 prepared at the prosecution stage, but it was not proven that the interrogation conducted at the prosecutor's office had been made under particularly reliable condition. Rather, as seen later, as seen in the latter, it seems that the above evidence was made at the court below's discretion that the defendant 00 did not have any ability to judge and expressed opinion relatively, and since the above evidence did not have any admissibility of evidence as to the defendant 00 as to the above protocol of examination on the defendant 100 and its admissibility did not have any admissibility of evidence at the court below's 000 minutes.

On the other hand, the Defendants denied all the contents of the confessions made by them in the police while denying the crime of this case. However, each co-defendant consented to the confession statements made in the police (the confessions made by Defendant 00 and each protocol of examination of the suspect, Defendant 000 and each protocol of examination of the suspect, Defendant 00, and Defendant 000 among the confrontations made by Defendant 00 and 000) (see, e.g., Supreme Court records 248 pages) (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 248 pages). However, as long as the Defendants consented to the evidence as above, each of the above evidence is admissible for the Defendants who consented to the evidence, and its probative value is only an issue.

(2) The probative value of evidence of 000

(A) Establishment

The core evidence of the above facts charged is 000's statement evidence, and some of the defendants' statement evidence is admissible, but the defendants have a profound dispute over the authenticity of such confession evidence, so the credibility of such confession evidence depends on the degree of credibility of such confession evidence, and each of the above circumstantial evidence also depends on the degree of credibility of such evidence 000's statement evidence. Accordingly, we examine whether 000's statement made at the police, the prosecution, and the original trial can be trusted or not.

(B) The statement of 000

100 made a statement relatively consistent from the police to the court of original judgment as follows. In other words, around 00 to 00, around 19:00, around April 16, 2008, the victims of the above 00 PCs used 00 PCs around the 00 PCs, and the rest of the defendants were 00 to 00 and 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs, and 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 19:0 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 19:0 20 PCs around the 00 PCs around the 19:0 20 PCs around the 200 west-gu.

However, as to whether Defendant 00's female-friendly appearance 00 participated in the criminal mother's process and the distribution of stolen goods after committing the crime, the police and the prosecutor's office received contact from Defendant 000 when drinking in the "Ful Park", and then, Defendant 00 went to nearby PC, and Defendant 00 went to the nearby PC, and Defendant 00 went to the PC again, and Defendant 00 went to the end of the crime. Defendant 5, including this, 000, took place at the same time on April 16, 190, and Defendant 1 did not come to sleep from the PC to the PC. In the first instance, Defendant 20th of the first instance trial, the first instance court stated that Defendant 1 did not go to the PC at the 00th of the first instance on the 16th of the first instance.

(C) 000 persons at the time of the date of the crime

00 consistently stated that around 19:00 on April 16, 199, the Defendants and the criminal conspiracy were committed in the PC room located in the "000s located in the far-ranged area of the U.S. Masan-dong Relief Complex" in Gwangju Northern-gu.

(4) From 00 to 00 : 00 Maz. 2, the above 00 Maz. 2, 00 Maz. 2, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 2, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 8, 000 Maz. Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 1, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 1, 00 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 1, 00 Maz. 1, 000 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. 1,000 Maz. 8, 00 Maz. Maz. 1,000 Maz. 2,00 Maz.

(D) Location of Defendant 000 and Defendant 000 before and after the date of the crime

Defendant 00, Defendant 00, and witness 00,000, 000, and 000 of the original trial witness of the court below are consistent with each other. On April 16, 2008, Defendant 00,000,000, 000, and 000 sent time at the instant terminal’s singing, PC room, etc. around the instant terminal, and Defendant 1 sent time at the said port of night, and the said time is also locked in a sobry near the instant port of night.

먼저, 피고인 000의 소재에 대하여 살피건대, 피고인 000의 000 아이디 '000' 은 피고인 000이 4. 22.부터 사용한 아이디이고, 그 이전의 아이디가 무엇이었는지 및 그 접속기록은 기록에 나타나 있지 않으나, 피고인 000의 싸이월드 미니홈피(http://000) 방명록과 000의 싸이월드 미니홈피(http://000 ) 방명록을 보면, 누군가가 피고인 000 의 이름으로 4. 16. 22:19에 000의 미니홈피의 방명록에 접속해서 ‘와 홈피 잘꿈며땅 ㅋ ㅋ ㅋ ㅋ 나도 하고 싶당 홈피꿈이 는 것 '이라는 글을 올렸고, 4. 16. 22:16에 이번 에는 000이 피고인 000의 미니홈피에 접속하여 '내 홈피에서 퍼갓어? ㅋ ㅋ ㅋㅋ'라는 글을 남겼으며, 이에 대하여 누군가가 피고인 000의 이름으로 다시 4. 16. 23:08에 위 000의 글에 대한 댓글로 'ㅋ ㅋ ㅋ ㅋ'라는 내용의 글을 올린 사실을 알 수 있는데, ① 피고인 000의 이름으로 피고인 000의 미니홈피와 000의 미니홈피에 접속한 사람은 다른 사정이 없는 한 피고인 000일 확률이 높은 점, ② 피고인 000의 미니홈피의 방 명록에 000의 이름으로 작성된 글이 많이 올라와 있는 것으로 보아 위 글들의 실제 작성자가 피고인 000이 아닐 수도 있다는 가능성에 대하여 보면, 자신의 미니홈피의 방명록에 자신이 글을 올리는 것은 흔히 있는 일은 아니라고 할 것이나, 피고인 000의 미니홈피 방명록 전체를 보면, 피고인 000의 미니홈피 방명록에는 2008. 4. 15.까지 방명록에 올라온 글 20개 전부가 '000' 의 이름으로 쓰여졌고(방문자가 비밀설정하고 쓴 글은 다른 사람이 볼 수 없으므로, 다른 사람이 비밀설정을 하고 쓴 글은 있을 수 있음), 000의 미니홈피의 방명록의 경우에도 2008. 4. 15.경까지 '000'의 이름으로 된 글만 올라와 있으며, 오히려 2008. 4. 15.경까지 피고인 000과 000의 미니홈피의 게 시판에는 아무런 글도 올라와 있지 않은 점(피고인 000의 미니홈피 게시판에 2008. 4 . 30. 피고인 000 명의의 글이 한 개 올라와 있다) 에 비추어 보면, 피고인 000 등에 게 있어서는 자신의 미니홈피 방명록에 자신이 글을 쓰는 것이 자연스러운 행위라고 보이므로, 피고인 000의 미니홈피 방명록에 피고인 000 명의의 글이 다수 올라와 있 다는 사정만으로 위 글들의 실제 작성자가 피고인 000이 아닐 가능성이 크다고 할 수 없는 점, ③ 위와 같은 000 명의의 글은 피고인 000 등이 별건으로 체포되어 구속되 기 직전인 2008. 4. 30. 이후로는 더 이상 올라오지 않는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 미 니홈피에 2008. 4. 16. 23:08에 글을 올린 사람은 피고인 000일 가능성이 상당히 크 다(피고인 000이 아닐 가능성을 상정해 보면, 피고인 000 등의 구속 이후 피고인 000 의 미니홈피에 더 이상 글이 올라오지 않은 것으로 보아, 위 글의 작성자는 함께 구속 된 피고인 000, 피고인 000 등 공범 중의 한 명이라고 하여야 하는데, 그렇게 보더라 도 위 시간 무렵에 4명이 '어울림공원’ 에서 술을 마시고 있었거나 범행장소로 이동하고 있었다는 000의 진술과 명백히 배치된다). 또한, PC 이용자들이 같은 PC방 옆자리에 서도 구두로 대화하지 않고 PC로 대화하는 것은 흔히 있는 일인 점에 비추어 보면, 피 고인 000과 000이 PC로 대화를 했다는 사정만으로 피고인 000이 당시 000이 있었던 나주가 아닌 다른 곳에 있었다고 단정하기도 어렵다. 한편, 피고인 000이 아버지의 주 민등록번호를 이용하여 2008. 4. 17. 13:24경에 나주시 중앙동에 있는 '물존’ PC방에 서 회원가입을 하고 그곳에서 약 1시간 45분 동안 PC를 이용한 사실이 인정되는데( 원 심증인 000의 진술, 회원가입기록(공판기록 411-412쪽)}, 이 또한 범행 다음날 오후 까지 광주 북구 00동에 있는 찜질방에서 피고인들과 함께 잠을 잤다는 000의 진술과 명백히 배치된다.

다음으로, 피고인 000의 소재에 대하여 보건대, 피고인 000의 000 메신저 아이 디인 '000'의 접속기록을 보면, 위 아이디의 사용자가 4. 16. 오후까지 00리역 근처에 서 000 메신저에 접속하였다가 그날 21:59경부터 22:52경까지 나주시 성북동 ‘짱 PC 방'에서 000 메신저에 접속하였고, 그 다음 날인 2008. 4. 17. 13:26경부터 15:08경까 지 나주시 중앙동에 있는 '물존’ PC방에서 000 메신저에 접속한 사실이 인정되는데, ① 000이 '000'의 아이디를 000이 사용했고 자신은 '000'을 사용했다고 진술하고 있는 점, ② 위 각 아이디의 2008. 4. 23.까지의 로그인 장소가 피고인들의 이동경로(광주 = > 부산 방면)와 일치하는 점 (증거기록 378쪽 ) 등에 비추어 보면 , 2007. 4. 16. 21:59경부터 22:52경까지 나주에서 '000' 의 아이디로 000 메신저에 접속한 사람은 피 고인 000일 가능성이 상당히 크다(설령, 000이 '000’ 아이디를 사용했다고 하더라도, 000이 평소에 거의 붙어다니다시피 하는 피고인 000 등과 떨어져 평소에 가본 적이 전혀 없는 나주까지 혼자 갈 이유가 없어 보이므로, 피고인 000이 000과 그 무렵 함 께 있었을 가능성이 크다).

Therefore, around April 16, 2008, Defendant 00, around 16, 2000, was in the PC bank of 00's around 00-dong in Gwangju Northern-gu and the 'Guleul Park Park' in the same Gu Pung-dong. The statement of 000, which started from around 22:00 to 23:30 on the same day, is highly likely to be false.

(E) Location of Defendant 000 before and after the date of the crime

Defendant 00 stated that Defendant 00 did not together with Defendant 00,000, around the day of the crime of the above facts charged. Defendant 00 and Defendant 000,000 witness of the lower court and Defendant 00,000 also stated that Defendant 00 did not have together with them around April 16, 2008.

In light of the fact that the Defendant 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 5, 4, 5, 50, 4, 500, 000 , 000 , 000 , 000 ,4,000 ,000 ,000 ,000 ,00 ,000 ,00 ,00 ,000 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,00 ,0

Therefore, the statement of 000 that Defendant 00 was in Gwangju around April 16, 2008 and was involved in the crime of the same content as the above facts charged is highly likely to be false (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do324, Apr. 15, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 200Do328, Apr. 15, 2008).

(f) The credibility of the statement 000 that 000 has participated in the process of criminal conspiracy and distribution of stolen property

As seen earlier, as 00, when drinking alcohol in the police and the prosecution, the police and the prosecution made a statement that 000 persons, including 000 Doese Park, called Defendant 1’s contact with Defendant 00 and drinking alcohol to Defendant 1, 000, and Defendant 1 did not make a statement that 00 persons, including 000 Doese and Doese, Doese Park at the nearby PC on April 16, 16, 200 to Defendant 1, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 200, 20, 300, 20, 20, 20, 30, 20, 30,00, 30,000, 30,000, 30,00, 30,000, 30, 30,00.

In full view of all the statements and evidence presented in the records of the lower court’s witness 000,000,000 and 000 of the lower court’s witness, since it is apparent that the PC was located at the SPC on April 16, 2008, the statements made by the police and the prosecutor’s office are false. Nevertheless, the 000 statements made by the police and the prosecutor’s office on April 16, 200 and the 000 statements made by the police and the prosecutor’s office through detailed statements from April 16, 200, which are sufficient to raise doubt about the credibility of other statements related to the Defendants.

(G) The credibility of statements 000 relating to the distribution of stolen goods

00 included 200,000 won in the police and prosecutor's office, but among which 70,000 won was owned by himself, the remainder was divided by 000 and 000, and hereinafter referred to as "True") among 6 A of tobacco, 2 A stated that the remainder of 400,000,000, and 00 were divided by 1.

However, as of December 192, 1992, the statement that Defendant 00 and Defendant 000 did not have any possibility at that time was distributed in Gwangju is difficult to easily understand, and as seen earlier, the above statement of 000 is likely to be false.

(h) Results of the examination and analysis on the Defendants

According to the results of the examination and analysis on the Defendants and 000 conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office, the defendants 00, 000 and 000 (which denied the crime of Level 000) in the polygraphy Prosecutor (False Detection Prosecutor) showed that the defendants were "voluntary reaction", and the defendants 00 were "unjudgmentability". In the behavior analysis, there was no deviation from the basic behavior tendency of both the defendants and 000, and therefore, there was a consensus that the statements by the defendants and 000 are highly likely to be true.

The result of the examination by the prosecutor cannot be used as evidence for conviction, but it shall be deemed that the result of the examination shows a considerable degree of credibility, and thus, it may be used as evidence for impeachment of evidence for conviction. As long as all the statements by the Defendants and 000 denying the crime are highly likely to be true, it is reasonable to view that the statements by the Defendants, who committed the crime like the above facts charged, are relatively less likely to be true.

(i) Small conclusion

Ultimately, in light of the above various points, the police, the prosecution, and the court below's statement that the defendants committed the same crime as the above facts charged are very low credibility (or, however, 00 denied all the above facts charged during the deliberation and analysis conducted by the Supreme Prosecutors' Office after prosecution, and the court of first instance, which is being separated from the defendants, did not commit the robbery, etc. of this case, once again). On the contrary, it seems that the credibility of the defendants' defenses is high (However, 000 p PCs around the distance of the front time of the relief and the defendants together, and 00 p PCs in the "Ful Park" park where they drink alcohol, and the fact that 00 p scling the above facts are combined with the above facts, etc. do not seem to be a processed fact that was made by the court of first instance and the defendants, and they could not be seen to have been actually committed before 00 days prior to the above facts charged.

(3) The defendants' probative value of testimony evidence

As to Defendant 00 and 000, the protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 000 prepared by the judicial police officer and the interrogation of the suspect about Defendant 000 whose admissibility is admitted as evidence, each protocol of interrogation of the defendant 000 and each protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 000 prepared by the judicial police officer (00 and comparison) whose admissibility is admitted as evidence as to the defendant 00, each of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 000 prepared by the judicial police officer (00 and comparison) whose admissibility is admitted as to the defendant 00, and the protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 000 prepared by the judicial police officer whose admissibility is admitted as to the defendant 00, among the protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 00 prepared by the judicial police officer (00 and comparison) whose admissibility is recognized as evidence as to the defendant 00, the contents of the protocol of interrogation of the suspect about 00 prepared by the defendant, together with the defendant 00.

In light of the above facts, Defendant 00, and Defendant 00 denied the crime from the prosecution to the trial of the court, and Defendant 00 denied the crime since the original trial to the trial of the court, and Defendant 2 repeated several times at an investigative agency, and emphasizing that the Defendants would be subject to heavy punishment unless the Defendants make a confession because the investigative agency, which is convictioning the Defendants, has secured the evidence that the Defendants would be accused of committing the crime, and that the Defendants could not make it difficult for the Defendants, who fall short of the ability to make judgment and expression of opinion compared to ordinary persons, to refuse such demand of the investigative agency, made the confession above (i.e., Defendant 00’s I Q is the mental body level of 65 degrees, and Defendant 00 I Q is considerably falling short of 71 degrees, and Defendant Q is very low compared to the above Defendants’ credibility and credibility of each of the above statements.

(4) The probative value of evidence relating to Defendant A, which was held by Defendant 000

Each statement of the record of the investigation report (related to an empty Pool in which the suspect was strong) prepared by the judicial police officer, each statement of each statement of the judicial police officer's 000,000 (Third), is owned by the victim who died of the defendant 000.

이에 대하여 000은 피해자로부터 강취한 지갑을 피고인 000과 바꿨다고 진술하 였고 , 피고인 000은 위 지갑을 누나의 남자친구로부터 선물로 받은 것이라는 취지로 변소하고 있다.

In light of the above, if there is a face that it is difficult to believe the statement of 000 as it is, as seen in the above, there is a substantial high-priced product, and the above a face value is not mixed in the market, or where there is a special feature with it, it is easy to distinguish the above a face value, it shall be deemed that there is credibility in the statement of 00,000, and the above a part part of the wall from other part of the wall. However, the above a part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the other part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the other part of the part of the part of the part of the part

(5) The probative value of a criminal investigation report relating to Defendant 000's statement

The contents of the investigation report (related to the investigation of a suspect) prepared by a judicial police officer stated that the police officer held Defendant 00's money to the Defendant 1 while investigating Defendant 000 after the occurrence of the instant crime stated that "I am to 00 days on the ground that our 00 knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

However, even if Defendant 00 is a criminal, it is difficult to see that he was aware of the fact by himself, even if he was the criminal, and therefore, 000 can only be viewed as returning to the police officer the crime committed by Defendant 00, which he became aware of through the police officer or the surrounding persons during the police’s search process. Thus, it is difficult to affect the above investigation report to prove the facts charged.

(6) The probative value of evidence relating to the self-denunciation telephone of Defendant 000

The statement at the original trial of 000 and the statement at the original trial of 000 are the statement that Defendant 00 calls to himself, which is a police officer of the Gwangju Northern Police Station, on April 26, 2008, and the statement that “I am 00, which is a police officer of the Gwangju Northern Police Station, makes a phone to himself, “I am 00, which is the only one, and the only one, is that if I am son, I am am son?” and how I am son?

It is true that Defendant 00 made a phone call to 000, but it was asked how to face the accident because it was the same as that of the accident, not that of the accident, but that of the accident.

On April 15, 200, Defendant 1 had been aware of the crime of larceny around 17:30 on April 17, 2008, and then withdrawn KRW 4.60,00 from his father who had been on board a wallet, and then could immediately move to the next day. ② Defendant 00, who was an accomplice, was 00 and 000 were 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 00 to 1, the reason was that the above 00 to 0 to 00 to 0 to 00 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 10 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 20 to 1.

(7)The probative value of other evidence.

The statement of 00 of the judicial police officer's statement and the statement of 000 of the witness at the trial court at the same time is merely that the above 000 of the above 00 of the statement statement made by the judicial police officer stated the process of suffering from the injury as the victim of robbery (In conclusion, 00 made several statements, and the 000 made several statements, considering the voice as the voice, that the offender is the 20th half or 30 first half, the same shall apply) and the statement made by the judicial police officer as to 00 of the statement made by the 00 of the 00 statement made by the defendant at his own office close to the scene of the crime, and it is hard to view that the three times statement made by the judicial police officer as to 00 of the 000 statement made by the 16th half of April 16, 2008 as evidence or evidence that it has different probative value.

(8) Determination

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendants' assertion of mistake about this part is justified.

3. Determination as to the defendant 00's claim of mental disability

According to the records, even though Defendant 00 is deemed to be a disabled person of the third degree in the mental retardation, Defendant 000 did not appear to have weak ability or decision-making ability at the time of preventing the remaining crime except for the death or injury resulting from robbery among the facts charged in this case, and thus, Defendant 00 does not accept the above assertion of Defendant 00.

The judgment of the court below as to this part of the defendants' assertion of misconception of facts as to robbery death and injury by robbery as stated in the judgment of the court below, is reversed. However, since the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below that the defendants did not make an assertion of fact-finding and the above parts are reversed, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed in its entirety.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's two unfair arguments, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Criminal facts

[208, 307]

1. Special larceny;

From around 000, 000 and May 2, 2005:30 on May 2, 2008, the Defendants found 000 victims who were under the influence of alcohol on the alleys of subway No. 1 and No. 00 lines near the subway No. 1 and No. 00 lines, and were under the influence of alcohol.

Accordingly, Defendant 00, by driving the victim's human body towards the mouth of drones, had the victim take a theft of the victim's money and valuables, had the victim put his own arms into the victim's body with a gap, instructed the victim 00, and Defendant 00 had the victim take the other arms of the victim, carried the victim's body into the body part, and 00 got the victim into the body part. Defendant 00 and 000 got back from the back to the end.

In addition, in the alley, Defendant 00, the victim's market value of 250,000 won was 10,000 won and 100,000 won of the market value, which was 200,000 won of the market value, was deducted. Defendant 00 turned out one 50,000 won of the market value, which was 50,000 won of the market value, including the victim's back-side card, bC card, new card, people's card, modern card, resident registration certificate, and driver's license certificate.

Accordingly, the defendants stolen the victim's property together with 000,000.2. Fraud and Specialized Credit Finance Business Act violation.

At around 000,000 and around 06:42 on the same day, the Defendants had no intention or ability to pay the purchase price in the new 00, Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul. However, the Defendants had no intention or ability to pay the purchase price. 000 would have known that Defendant 00 would have purchased the 1-day 1-day 1-day mar for women equivalent to the market price of 10,000 won, and Defendant 00 would have known that Defendant 35,000 had purchased the 1-day mar for men with the market price of 35,000 won.

In addition, Defendant 00, Defendant 000, and Defendant 000 and 000 are on the side of the calculation unit. Defendant 000 by deceiving the credit card of 000 companies and bC (BC) that were stolen as stated in paragraph (1) by suggesting to 000 employees who are due holders, and by suggesting to 100 that they are the employees, as they are the right holders, and then, Defendant 00 was issued a 2-day, first instance, 45,000 won in total at the market price from 000.

In addition, the defendant 00 had 00 above 00 write a credit card sales slip for the purchase of new sales, issued the above 00 signature on the back of the credit card on the above sales slip, and issued it with the signature of 000 on the back of the credit card. The defendant 00, 000, 000, and 000 were followed thereby.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired with 00,000, by deceiving others, received property equivalent to 45,000 won and used stolen credit cards.

[208Gohap337]

Except as otherwise expressly provided for in other Acts, the means of access shall not be transferred or acquired, nor shall a pledge be created.

Nevertheless, around April 1, 2008, Defendant 00 issued each passbook and cash card of 000 persons who were named in the name of the deceased in the vicinity of the National Bank located at 000-si, 000-si, a post office account (00), the national bank account (00), and the Korean bank account (00) and notified the password.

As above, Defendant 00 transferred the means of access.

[208Gohap412]

On April 1, 2008, Defendant 00 received a proposal from a person who was unaware of his name before the Seoul Station to offer KRW 50,000 per head of the Tong.

Defendant 00 opened an account (Account Number: 00) with Defendant 00 at a 000 central point of one bank, 000,000, and made a cash card, and around that day, Defendant 00 attempted to set up a passbook and cash card as above, which is an access medium used to make a transaction request in electronic financial transactions to the persons without a name, or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of transactions.

[208Gohap447]

1. No person shall transfer or acquire a means of access. Nevertheless, Defendant 00 transferred a passbook, electronic card, and password to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, the means of access, at a location near the Nonghyup 000, 000, Nam-nam 000, to the Defendant.

2. No person may transfer or acquire a means of access. Nevertheless, on April 4, 2008, Defendant 00 transferred a passbook and a e-mail card and a password in the account in the name of the Defendant of Han Bank (00) at least 000 one bank located in Chungcheongnam-nam 00, one bank located in 000, one bank located in the name of the Defendant of the chain. [208 high Gohap448]

1. Defendant 00, 000 and 000 conspiredd with Non-Indicted 00 and Non-Indicted 000 for the following purposes: (a) they stolen the check card in the name of his father 000, which was held by Non-Indicted 000, which was later owned by Non-Indicted 000; and (b) withdraw cash with the above check card and use it together.

A. At around 17:00 on April 15, 2008, Defendant 00 and the above 000 talked about the above 000 games in the E-FPC room located in the Northbuk-gu, Gwangju, about 00 and the above 000 talked about the above 00 games in the computer table. Defendant 000 and the above 000 got out of the Dong. Defendant 00 and the above 000 got out of the bank 1 copy of the victim's 00 PC card in the above 00.

As a result, Defendant 00, 000 stolen the above physical card together with the above 000,000.

B. At around 17:30 on the same day, Defendant 00 and the above 000 withdrawn 4.60,000 won in cash from the cash payment instrument that manages the effectiveness of the victim corporation established at the above 00-mentioned bank cream card using the above 000 bank cream card.

Accordingly, Defendant 00, 000 conspired with the above 000,000, and 4.60,000 won was stolen.

2. Defendant 00

On April 15, 2008, from around 17:20 to 18:00 the same day, the driver driven 100 occined cITI without obtaining a motorcycle driver's license, and proceeded with approximately 5 kilometers up to the road front of the e-fland 00 dong, Gwangju Northern-gu.

[209Gohap6]

On April 1, 2008, Defendant 00 received a proposal from a person who was unaware of his name before the Seoul Station to offer KRW 50,000 per head of the Tong.

Defendant 00 opened an account (Account Number: 00) in the community credit cooperatives near 000 calendars on the same day, and made a cash card, and thereafter, Defendant 00 transferred the passbook and cash card as above, which are the means of access used to make a transaction request in electronic financial transactions to the above-mentioned person in the vicinity thereof, or to secure the authenticity and accuracy of users and the details of such transactions.

[Judgment 1]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol against the defendant 000,000;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Entry of each statement in the suspect examination protocol prepared by the prosecution on 000, 000, and 000;

1. Entry of the prosecutor's statement concerning 000 in the written statement;

1. Each protocol and list of seizure;

[Judgment 208 Gohap307]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol against the defendant 000,000;

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Statement made by each prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol concerning 000,000;

1. Statement made by the police on 000;

1. A report on seizure and list (10-13 pages of investigation records), and a report on the criminal place; and

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Each statement made by the police in relation to 000,000;

1. Correspondence (the post office of the 000 Myun-dong, Myun (the National Bank), the application for new trade, the application for trade within the territory of the Republic of Korea;

Reception (National Bank), Certificate of Deposit Transaction (Korean Bank)

【208 Gohap412】

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Statement made by the police on 000;

1. Request for provision of financial transaction information;

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Statement of each police statement on 000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 1. Bank transaction application, response to a request for details of financial transactions, copy of an application for transaction, and free savings deposit;

Schedule of Trading

1. A criminal investigation report (including telephone conversations recorded in an application for transaction), commission, reply, and criminal investigation report;

[Judgment 2008 Gohap448]

1. The legal statement of the defendant 00,000

1. Each statement made by each prosecutor of the suspect examination protocol against the defendant 000,000;

1. Each statement of each police suspect interrogation protocol about 000,000;

1. A statement of 000 statements;

1. A report on investigation (a photographing the suspect taken onCCTV shall be attached thereto);

[Judgment 208 Gohap448]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Entry of the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 00 in the prosecutor's office

1. Statement of a police suspect interrogation protocol about 000;

1. Investigation report (Attachment to the motor vehicle driving license register referred to in 000);

[Judgment of the court below]

1. The legal statement of Defendant 000

1. Statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 000

1. Statement made by the police on 000;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to submit data on a copy of the detailed statement of transactions of automatic cash withdrawal machines, and a warrant of search, seizure and verification;

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

A. Defendant 000: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny) and Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Articles 1, 30 (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 70 (1) 3 and 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act

Article 30 (Unlawful Use of Credit Cards, Selection of Imprisonment)

B. Defendant 000: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of special larceny) and Article 347 of the Criminal Act

Paragraph 1 of this Article, Article 30 (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, Punishment

Article 30 of the Act (Unlawful Use of Credit Cards, Selection of Imprisonment) and Article 154 subparagraph 2 of the Road Traffic Act

43.(The point of driving without a license for a motorcycle and the selection of a fine)

C. Defendant 000: Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of special larceny) and Article 347(1) of the Criminal Act;

Article 30 (Fraud, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 70 (1) 3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Criminal Act

Article 30 (Unlawful Use of Credit Cards, Selection of Imprisonment) and each of the former Electronic Financial Transactions Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Electronic Financial Transactions Act")

31. Article 49(5)1 and Article 6(3)1 of the Act (amended by Act No. 9325)

Transfer of media, Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Criminal Act (Defendant 00,000, 00) Nos. 37, 38(1)2, and 50

Articles 37(former part), 38(1)2 and 38(1)3, and 50(Defendant 000) of the Criminal Act

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (Defendant 000)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (In depth as the defendant is detained in custody for about one year and five months)

It shall be taken into account, such as being pened)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (Defendant 000)

Parts of innocence

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, the purport of the fact that the robbery was caused and the injury caused by robbery is identical to the description in the corresponding column of the judgment on the mistake of facts by the above Defendants. This constitutes a case where there is no evidence to prove each of the above facts charged, as examined in the part of the judgment on the mistake of facts by the above Defendants, and there is no evidence to prove the facts charged, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of

Soldiers (Presiding Judge)

Yang Young-hee

Efficacy