Defendant

Park Jong-chul (prosecution, public trial), and public trial

Attorney Or-ju et al.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty years.

On April 3, 1997, at around 21:30 on April 21, 1997, the Defendant ○○ ○○ Babber located in Yongsan-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) together with Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 9, etc. of the Defendant-friendly sabling who sits on the table installed in the above toilet corridor.

The Defendant, etc., along with Nonindicted Party 1’s talks that “I kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn

피고인과 공소외 1은 1997. 4. 3. 21:50경 마침 술에 취한 피해자 공소외 6(당시 22세, 생년월일 생략)이 자신들의 일행 옆을 지나 화장실로 들어가는 것을 보자 피고인이 실제로 사람을 칼로 찌를 용기가 있는지 여부를 시험해 보기로 하고, 피고인 또는 공소외 1이 “I'm going to show you something cool. Come in the bathroom with me(뭔가 멋진 것을 보여줄 테니 화장실에 나와 함께 가자)”라고 말한 다음, 공소외 1이 피해자를 뒤따라 남자화장실 쪽으로 가고, 피고인도 공소외 1을 뒤따라 남자화장실 쪽으로 갔다.

On April 3, 1997, at around 21:50, Nonindicted Party 1 entered the above male toilet first, and maintained whether the Defendant actually knifeed the victim. On April 3, 1997, the Defendant entered the above toilet and found the victim to be knife before the right side.

After confirming whether there is a person opening the partitions in which a speaking apparatus is installed behind the right side of the victim, the defendant gets knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife,

As above, the victim died of an excessive departure from the hospital after knife in the knife.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspiredd with Nonindicted Party 1 and State 1) to murdered the victim.

1. A defendant's partial statement (According to Article 22 (9) (g) of the Status of United States Armed Forces Agreement and the agreed meeting minutes thereof, the defendant's statement made when the representative of the Government of the United States of America did not participate may not be admitted as evidence of guilt against the defendant. However, the defendant does not constitute a member of the United States Armed Forces, a military personnel, or a invited contractor designated by the Government of the United States of America, nor is it included in the invitation contract of the invited contractor, and thus the above agreement does not apply to the defendant)

1. Each legal statement of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 17, and Nonindicted 18

1. Trial records, protocol of examination of each witness, and protocol of examination of each court;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant (including the part written in the statement of the non-indicted 9, excluded from the part written in the statement of the non-indicted 1, excluding the part written in the non-indicted 3 through 6, 2204 and 7 through 10 of the investigation record among the fifth suspect's interrogation protocol) against the defendant

1. Three-time suspect interrogation protocol of the Defendant (excluding the part written in Nonparty 1’s statement)

1. Each prosecutor’s statement on Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 19 (excluding the part on the statements in the re-written statement), Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 12

1. The part in which Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 10, and Nonindicted 5 agree to the part in which the statement was written as evidence by the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do171, Mar. 11, 2004) are admissible as evidence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do171, Mar. 11, 204), Nonindicted 2 (excluding the part in which the statement was written in the full text), Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 11 (excluding the part in which the statement was written in the full text), Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 2 (excluding the part on which the statement was entered in the report), Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 24 (excluding the part on which the statement was entered in the report)

1. Police Inspection Record (Investigation Record No. 2521 pages);

1. A corpse death certificate, each appraisal certificate, and a autopsy and appraisal report;

1. Each investigation report (as a result of the interview between Nonindicted 13 and Nonindicted 14 interview with swords experts, listening to Nonindicted 15 statements by witnesses, and attaching photographs related to the use of the criminal tool)

1. Analysis results of each judgment, a photographic statement, an internal map inside the scene of the crime, a map around the scene of the crime, a map inside the scene of the crime, a visual map inside the scene of the crime, records of the scene of the crime, records of the scene of the crime, and arrest reports, self-denunciation, on-site drawings, on-site drawings, each prisoner identification card, decision to permit delivery of the defendant, and translation of the decision to permit delivery of the defendant;

1. Each protocol of seizure, each list of seizure, evidence/ownership documents;

[Judgment on Admissibility of Evidence]

In principle, the prosecutor’s protocol with respect to Nonindicted 19, the police’s protocol with respect to Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11, and the written statement with respect to Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 24, shall not be admissible as evidence in principle in accordance with the provisions of Article 310-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act, insofar as the Defendant did not consent to the admissibility of evidence: Provided, That it is admissible only when the person making the original statement required to make a statement on the date of trial is unable to make a statement due to death, disease, foreign residence, unknown whereabouts, or any other similar cause, and it is proved that the statement or preparation was made

A. Relevant legal principles

The phrase “foreign residence” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act is insufficient solely with the existence of a person who needs a statement in a foreign country. In the course of an investigation, the investigative agency confirms whether the person who has made the statement was residing in the foreign country and the possibility of departure in the future, and if it is probable that the person who has made the statement could not attend and make a statement in the future due to such circumstances as his/her residence in the foreign country or leaving the near future and staying there for a long time in the near future, it shall be confirmed in advance the contact with the person who has made the statement, and if he/she is expected to temporarily return to the country, the time of return and the method of contact with the place of stay at the time of return, etc., and even after his/her departure from the country, the person who has made the statement shall be sufficiently provided with an opportunity to attend and make a statement at the public trial, and even after his/her departure from the Republic of Korea, it shall be deemed that the above requirement of a summons 201 is not applicable to the case where the person can always attend the court.

Meanwhile, “When the statement or preparation was made under particularly reliable circumstances” under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act refers to cases where there is little room for false entry into the contents of the statement or the preparation of the protocol or documents concerned, and there is specific and external circumstances that guarantee the credibility or voluntariness of the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do3786, Nov. 26, 1999; 200Do159, Mar. 10, 200; 2005Do9561, Apr. 14, 206). Furthermore, in the case of a foreign residence, etc. under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it is difficult to acknowledge admissibility of the statement or written statement made by a witness to the extent that it satisfies strict requirements, such as the right of the defendant or defense counsel, and thus, it is difficult to recognize the admissibility of evidence under Article 312 or 313 of the Criminal Procedure Act to the extent that it is possible to grant a direct cross-examination of evidence.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, each of the evidence in this part is admissible inasmuch as Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 24 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 19 et al.”) on the trial date falls under the case where a person is unable to make a statement due to his residence in a foreign country, there is little room for false intervention in the statement or preparation, and there is little specific and external circumstance to ensure the credibility or arbitability of the statement.

1) From April 5, 1997 to April 16 of the same year, the investigation into Nonindicted 19, etc. was conducted as a witness, and 18 years have already passed since they were summoned as a witness. In addition, Nonindicted 19 had no fact of visiting the Republic of Korea at one time after departure from the Republic of Korea on May 30, 1997, and Nonindicted 24 had no fact of having secured the method of attending the court and making statements. Accordingly, even if the person who made the statement at the time of the investigation into Nonindicted 19, etc., it cannot be deemed that such measures are valid until the date of the investigation into Nonindicted 19, etc., by checking the foreign address or contact address of the person who made the statement at the time of the investigation into Nonindicted 19, etc., and having made an appearance and making a statement on the basis of whether the method of making the statement was available and appropriate.

2) The prosecution secured the address, contact address, and e-mail of Nonindicted 19, etc. based on the United States’s integrated report via the United States’s criminal investigation unit (CID), and confirmed whether they wish to appear and make a statement in the official ruling, and confirmed that they had the intent to appear in the official ruling. Based on this, the court made efforts to secure their attendance in various ways, such as attempting to call a witness summons or sending an e-mail, other than sending a witness summons, through the criminal justice cooperation and cooperation between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, through the military investigation unit (C

3) Nonindicted 19 et al. refused to appear at the court of the Republic of Korea upon receiving contact to the effect that “If there is a date on which the witness may attend even if not designated, it shall be known.” In light of the contents of Article 1 subparag. 2(a) and (e), Articles 10 and 11 of the Criminal Procedure Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America, if the testimony of a person located in the United States of America is necessary, the United States of America may recommend him/her to appear in the court of the Republic of Korea, except in cases where the person located in the United States of America is under confinement, and may not compel him/her to appear as a witness. Accordingly, there is

4) Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 2’s written oath was prepared in the form of a Sworn State oath, and the written oath was prepared by Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 2 after being notified that any content different from the written oath would pose a risk of criminal punishment if the content of the written oath is false, read the content of the written oath to a large amount of sound, and read it through the process of signing, and Nonindicted 16 stated that his guardian was present at the time when the written oath was prepared by Nonindicted 24 and Nonindicted 2.

5) Nonindicted 19 was known to read and use the Korean language, was investigated by the prosecution while the guardian and the representative of the United States of America were present, and Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 11 were investigated by the police while the representative of the United States of America and the interpreter were present.

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

Articles 250(1) and 30 (Selection of Imprisonment for Arms)

1. Mitigation of imprisonment for life;

Article 4 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes (In cases where a juvenile under the age of 18 at the time he/she commits a homicide shall be sentenced to life imprisonment for a limited term of 20 years, notwithstanding Article 59 of the Juvenile Act),

1. Whether the statute of limitations has expired;

A. The assertion

In this case, the statute of limitations should be determined by the Republic of Korea on September 22, 2015 when the defendant's personal injury was delivered, and the statute of limitations has already expired since the defendant was not staying abroad for the purpose of escaping criminal punishment.

B. Determination

Pursuant to Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act, the statutory punishment for murder is “a death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years” under Article 250(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 250 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Article 50 of the Criminal Act, Article 3 of the Addenda to the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), and Article 249(1)1 of the former Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 8730 of Dec. 21, 2007), the statute of limitations is 15 years. Meanwhile, Article 252(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that “The statute of limitations begins from the completion of a criminal act,” and Article 253(1) of the same Act provides that “The statute of limitations is suspended from the date on which a judgment dismissing a public prosecution or a judgment denying a violation of jurisdiction becomes final and conclusive,” and thus, the statute of limitations of limitations of this case was rejected from the Defendant’s.

2. Whether the case constitutes abuse of authority to prosecute;

A. The assertion

The indictment of this case consists of documents only for the purpose of suspending the statute of limitations, and it is against the purpose of the statute of limitations system, so it constitutes abuse of the power to prosecute.

B. Relevant legal principles

A prosecutor has the discretionary power to decide whether to institute a public prosecution in consideration of the suspect’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime. Thus, the institution of public prosecution following the exercise of discretionary power above cannot be deemed an abuse of the authority to institute a public prosecution unless it is recognized that the institution of public prosecution significantly deviates from the authority to institute a public prosecution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 99Do577, Dec. 10, 199; 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006); in order to recognize that a prosecutor clearly deviates from the authority to institute a public prosecution as a arbitrary exercise of authority to institute a public prosecution, it is not sufficient merely by negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least there is an incomplete or complete intention (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9737, Feb. 14, 2008).

C. Determination

The facts charged by the prosecution without the defendant's additional statement are recognized. However, in the investigation agency and the court of the preceding case, the defendant has already made several statements about "the date and time of the crime committed in the market, who is the victim knife at the place of the crime in the market," and many evidence have been collected, such as witness's statement, on-site photo, and autopsy report. In addition, the prosecution has instituted a public prosecution against the defendant in addition to the newly collected evidence, such as securing additional statements through the reinforcement of evidence already collected after the verdict of innocence was finally binding on the victim in the preceding case, and analyzing the blood trace and the implements of the crime. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the prosecutor, in instituting the prosecution against the defendant in the instant case, had seriously affected the defendant by arbitrarily deviating from the power of prosecution discretion. This part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

3. Whether a final and conclusive judgment affects the facts charged in this case

A. The assertion

The facts charged of this case and the facts charged of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act or the destruction of evidence against the defendant are identical to the facts charged of this case. As such, the above final judgment has an effect on the facts charged of this case.

B. Relevant legal principles

When a criminal trial becomes final and conclusive substantially and conclusive, it cannot be repeatedly punished for the same crime (Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea), and where a public prosecution is instituted against the same case with a final and conclusive judgment, a judgment of acquittal shall be pronounced (Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Therefore, whether the res judicata effect of the crime of violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act and the crime of destroying evidence against the defendant affects the facts charged for the crime of murder of this case should be determined depending on whether the basic facts are the same. Meanwhile, as the identity of the facts charged or the facts charged is a concept under the Criminal Procedure Act, it should be considered the significance of the criminal procedure or the legal function of the lawsuit in the criminal procedure. Thus, whether the basic facts of the two crimes are identical or not can not be determined solely from a pure and legal point of view without completely excluding the normative elements, and its normative elements, other than the same as the natural, social or defendant's act, shall also constitute a substantial part of the basic facts identity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20008Do14000.

C. Determination

In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, the facts charged as to the above crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of destruction of evidence and the facts charged as to the crime of murder of this case cannot be deemed as identical to the facts charged. Therefore, the res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment on the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and the crime of destruction of evidence cannot be deemed as identical to the facts charged as to the crime of murder of this case

(i) the natural and social facts are not identical;

A) The time and place do not overlap

The facts constituting the crime of the judgment finalized against the defendant are as follows: "The defendant possessed a portable blade, which is a dangerous object that might be used for the crime without any justifiable reason, from the early February 1997 to April 22:0 of the same year; around 23:00 on April 3, 1997, Non-Indicted 1 did not report to the investigation agency despite witnessing the scene of murder at the toilet; Non-Indicted 1 knew that the portable blade was used to kill the victim at the toilet; and destroyed evidence on the criminal case of another person, which was abandoned within 8 knife of knife and knife of knife of 197 to the above non-Indicted 1 for the purpose of destroying the evidence of the above non-indicted 1's murder case." Meanwhile, in light of the fact that Non-Indicted 1 was guilty of the defendant's act of escape and the defendant's knife of knife as one of the above facts charged, he was dead."

B) the manner of the act;

The facts charged of the instant case are as follows: “The Defendant was killed of the victim’s knife with a knife knife which the Defendant had previously possessed by him,” whereas the facts charged of the final judgment are as follows: “The Defendant possessed the knife before the victim enters the toilet or concealed the knife used in committing the crime after knife in the knife.” The form of the act differs.

2) Even if considering the normative elements, the basic factual basis is not identical

A) The name of the principal

While the intent of the crime of murder is "kills another person," the intent of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is "the carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles," and the intent of the crime of destruction of evidence is "the destruction of evidence concerning another person's criminal or disciplinary case," and the criminal intent of the crime of destruction of evidence is different.

B) There is a big difference between the protected legal interest, the existence of the victim, the nature of the crime, and the necessity of punishment.

The legal interest of the crime of murder is the victim’s life, which is one of the legal interests of the victim. On the other hand, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act or the crime of destruction of evidence is a crime without the victim’s legal interest, and there is a big difference in the legal interest of the State. In addition, the statutory penalty of the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act is “a imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine not exceeding three million won” (Article 7 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act), and the statutory penalty of the crime of destruction of evidence is “a imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine not exceeding seven million won” (Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act) and the statutory penalty of the crime of murder is “a imprisonment for life or for not less than five years” (Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act). Therefore, there is a significant difference in the quality of

3) Whether the crime of murder and destruction of evidence cannot be compatible with the crime of murder and destruction of evidence is deemed identical with the basic facts of both parties.

Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act provides that the destruction of evidence in relation to “the criminal case against another person” as the constituent element of the crime of destroying evidence, and there is no week 2 that the crime of murder and the crime of destroying evidence may be established at the same time in the event that a person who kills another person destroys tools used for the act of murder. As seen earlier, the crime of destroying evidence against the accused is premised on Nonindicted 1’s knife, and the facts charged in this case appear to be incompatible because the Defendant reached the victim in knife and thus it seems impossible to be compatible with each other. However, the conclusion that the basic facts are identical on the ground that the facts cannot be said to be inconsistent is logically inevitable. In such a case, “the protection of legal stability against the accused and harmony between the State’s exercise of the penal authority” is necessary, and therefore, the identity of basic facts should be determined in consideration of the normative element (where a person kills a person and a person deducted money and valuables, and then a person distributed stolen stolen goods, see Supreme Court en banc Decision 392Do292.

4. Whether the crime of murder was established

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Degree of proof for conviction

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value, which makes it possible for a judge to have the truth that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, the judgment should be based on the interests of the defendant even if there is doubt of guilt. The reasonable doubt here refers to a reasonable doubt about the probability of facts that are inconsistent with facts in accordance with logical and empirical rules, rather than including any doubt and correspondence. As such, the circumstance favorable to the defendant should be based on a sexual prosecution that grasps the circumstances favorable to the defendant in connection with the fact finding, and thus, suspicion based on conceptual or abstract possibility cannot be said to be included in a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Do11591, Feb. 14, 2013; 2013Do4172, Jun. 27, 2013).

2) Determination of credibility of the statement based on the principle of free evaluation of evidence

Articles 307(1) and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act provide that fact-finding shall be based on evidence, and that the probative value of evidence shall be determined by the judge’s free evaluation of evidence. This means that a judge’s acceptance and use of necessary evidence and evaluation of the substantial value of such evidence belongs to the judge’s free evaluation of evidence. Therefore, insofar as it is not contrary to logical and empirical rules by rejecting sufficient probative evidence without any reasonable ground, or by adopting and using evidence clearly contrary to objective facts without any reasonable ground, a judge may, free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1755, May 29, 2008). Accordingly, a judge may accept facts by adopting evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1755, May 29, 2008). Thus, where a judge rejects credibility of the remaining part of his/her statement as it is, even if objective circumstances, etc. are not revealed, the remaining part of his/her statement should be determined to be sufficiently acceptable.

B. Whether the defendant knife the victim

1) Presumed facts and the form of crime

The victim died from a knife in a toilet which is a sealed space, and only the victim, the defendant, and the non-indicted 1 were in a toilet at that time, so there is no possibility that the third party murdered the victim. The defendant and the non-indicted 1 have reached a knife with the victim, and they dispute only that the other party has knife with the witness, and so they have complied with the crime possible on the same premise, so the following is presented: ① the defendant has knife the victim, the non-indicted 1 has been witnessed, and the non-indicted 1 was aware of, or could have anticipated, the fact that the victim was knife with the victim, and the non-indicted 1 was knife with the victim, and Non-indicted 1 was present or could not have known of, "the fact that the defendant was knife with the victim".

2) Facts of recognition

A) Moving of the Defendant, etc. before the victim entered ○○○ ○○ Babl (hereinafter “○○ ○”).

(1) According to the police officer’s statement, prosecutor’s statement, Nonindicted 20 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 5”), Nonindicted 9, and the prosecutor’s statement of Nonindicted 3 on Nonindicted 5 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 20”), the following facts may be recognized. Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 9, and Nonindicted 8 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 8”), etc., of the 4th floor of the building where the ○○○○○○○○ was located, were gathered in the drinking house (hereinafter “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△”). Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3 first unloaded to ○○○○○ and moved to Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3’s seat near Nonindicted 6 seated to ○○○○○○○○○○○, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 4 were seated in Nonindicted △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△.

(2) Meanwhile, following Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 3’s prosecutorial statement, the protocol of examination of partially the Defendant’s prosecution, the protocol of examination of Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 18 on April 11, 1997 against the Defendant, and the legal statement of Nonindicted 8 and Nonindicted 18, etc., the following facts may be acknowledged. The stairs going from ○○○○ to △△△△△△△△△△○ was only one, and there was no way to go through the said stairs and to go up to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○ was a total of three doors (the door going through the direction, the door going through the direction, the door going to △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 200 and a woman 8.

B) Contents of conversation between the Defendant, Nonindicted 1, etc. before the victim entered ○○○○.

In light of the following statements, it is difficult to confirm who the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 cited a knife and used the word “a person” and at least, it is recognized that Nonindicted 1, before the victim entered ○○○○○, told that the Defendant, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 9, the Defendant and Nonindicted 1, who was on the part of the Defendant, female-friendly job offers, had a nife the nife, followed the Defendant by saying, “I am knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife.”

(1) On July 4, 1997, Non-Indicted 1 stated in the court of the preceding case that “I am knifely knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife?” Non-Indicted 1 stated that “I am knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.”

(2) Meanwhile, at the police station, Nonindicted 5 stated, Nonindicted 1 stated that “I am kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’s kn’.

C) Situation when the victim enters ○○○ and moves toward the direction of a toilet

In light of the following circumstances, among the defendants, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 9, the victim led to the direction of a toilet into ○○○○○ and the victim was examined by both the defendants, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 9. When Nonindicted 3 moved toward △△△△△△△, Nonindicted 9 moved toward the direction of the direction of ○○○○○○○ in order to go up to △△△△△△△△, and when Nonindicted 9 moves toward the direction of bees in which Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 8 were located, the facts between the defendants, and Nonindicted 1 are recognized as well.

(1) Whether the defendant and the non-indicted 1 sent the victim to the toilet

The defendant made a statement to the effect that "the victim and non-indicted 1 were only the victim," consistent at the time of investigation (3 times, 2353 pages), prosecutor's office (1, 2, 4 times, 2089, 2107, and 2175 pages). On January 9, 1998, the court of the preceding case made a statement to the effect that "the victim and non-indicted 1 were returned to the right side of the head, and the victim turned back to the right side of the head," even at the time of the on-site inspection of the preceding case (3086 pages of the investigation record). On the other hand, when examining the court of the preceding case on January 9, 198, Non-indicted 1 and the court of the preceding case, "the victim 1 was also the victim's witness entering the toilet to the right side of the victim," and the victim's statement to the effect that "the victim was extremely present to the right side of the case."

(2) The location of Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 9 at the time the victim entered ○○○○ and led to a toilet.

The Defendant stated at the prosecution (I and II) that “the victim was seated only with the Defendant and Nonindicted 10,00,” but at the prosecution (I and II), that “the victim was only the victim about to stop,” and that “the victim and Nonindicted 9 went to the opposite direction on January 9, 198 when verifying the site of the preceding case,” Nonindicted 9 stated that “the victim and Nonindicted 9 went to the opposite direction.” On the other hand, Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant stated that Nonindicted 5 had already come to the outside of the room at the time of the victim’s appearance, and that Nonindicted 3 had come to go to the direction of △△△△△△△, and that Nonindicted 3 was aware of the direction of smoking in the direction of △△△△△△△△△△, Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 3 had come to the direction of △△△△△△△△△△, and that Nonindicted 3 had come to the direction of drinking in the direction of △△△△△△.”

D) Circumstances after the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 entered ○○○ toilet

(1) The method of attack by the perpetrator and the response of the victim;

Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, relatively consistent with the police, the prosecution, and the preceding case in the court of law, and this court, stated to the effect that “the victim entered the toilet to the right side of the road,” “The perpetrator opened a door to the victim’s right side so that the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and knife knife or knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k.”

(2) The form of the victim's blood transfusion due to the harmful act

In light of the following circumstances, the perpetrator saw the victim’s right part of the part of the victim’s right part to the right part of the victim’s right part in the direction above. Although the victim obstructed the right part of the victim’s left part with the left part, the century from which the victim endeds to the right part to the right part of the victim’s hand, and the perpetrator saw that the victim saws to the right part to the right part of the victim’s left part of the part to the right part of the victim’s part to the right part to the right part to the right part of the har, it can be recognized that the f.o. S. .

(A) In the court of the preceding case on June 20, 1997, the Defendant stated that “A victim was sponsed to the right part of the victim’s right part first,” and on July 18, 1997, the court of the preceding case stated that “A victim was sponsed to the right part of the victim’s right part by left hand, but the victim was sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the spons. The victim was sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the spons. When the victim was sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the sponsed to the spons.”

(B) Meanwhile, according to the autopsy appraisal document, one of the wooden be cut completely due to the 2.4 cm straw of the victim’s right right, which occurred below 2.5 cm. Nonindicted 12, who prepared the above autopsy appraisal document, stated to the effect that “the 3rd can be cut at the right side of the victim’s 2.4 cm,” and that “the 3rd can be cut at the right side of the victim’s 3rd and the 4 cm from the horizontal window.” In addition, Nonindicted 12, who made the above autopsy appraisal document, made a statement to the effect that “the 3rd can be cut at the right side of the victim’s 3rd and the 3rd can be cut at the right side of the victim’s 4 cm from the front 15 cm.”

(C) According to on-site photographs, it can be confirmed that the upper part of the wall bearing the right side and the upper part of the right side of the wall remain a bloodtain. As to this, Nonindicted 12 and Nonindicted 13 of the blood trace expert stated in this Court to the effect that “the bloodtain is a trace that the bloodtain was divided according to the heart boom at the time of the chill cutting.”

(3) The type of the victim at the time of discovery

According to Nonindicted 15 and Nonindicted 18’s statements in police and in this court, and Nonindicted 2’s statements (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2”), etc., the victim was able to dice and boomed the neck in the form of a satisfly with the right side of the wall and the right side of the wall attached thereto at the time of discovery, and she was satisfying the back, and Nonindicted 15 was in a state of satisfy, and the victim was already found at the time when Nonindicted 15 discovered the victim. According to Nonindicted 12’s statements in this court by the autopsy, at the time, the victim got a large amount of the satrys that completely cut off the satry, which had been cut off, and the result seems to have lost consciousness at a very shorter time after cutting the satisfy.

E) After entering △△△△△△, Nonindicted Party 1’s movement

공소외 24, 공소외 23(이하 ‘공소외 23’이라 한다)의 진술서, 공소외 10(이하 ‘공소외 10’이라 한다), 공소외 22, 공소외 21, 공소외 23에 대한 경찰 진술조서, 공소외 2, 공소외 4(이하 ‘공소외 4’라 한다)에 대한 경찰, 검찰 진술조서 등에 따르면, 다음과 같은 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 공소외 1은 범행 발생 직후 △△△△△로 올라가 공소외 2, 공소외 10, 공소외 22 등이 있는 자리로 가 낄낄대며 큰 소리로 “우리가 방금 재미로 누군가의 목과 가슴을 칼로 찔렀다”라고 말하였고, 자신의 옷에 피가 묻은 것을 보여주며 피가 묻은 것을 불평하였다. 이를 들은 공소외 2는 2분 정도 카드 게임을 하다가 공소외 1의 말을 확인하기 위해 ○○○으로 내려갔는데, 잠시 후 50대 정도로 보이는 남성이 ○○○ 화장실에서 나오며 화장실 방향을 손가락으로 가리켰고, 이에 ○○○ 직원과 피해자의 여자친구가 화장실에 들어갔다. 피해자의 여자친구는 비명을 질렀고, 공소외 2는 그 소리를 듣고 화장실로 들어가 피해자가 피를 흘리며 쓰러져있는 장면을 목격하였다. 공소외 2는 다시 △△△△△로 올라가 공소외 1에게 욕설을 하며 “그 남자는 죽었다. 니가 죽였지”라고 소리치며 공소외 1을 때리려고 하였고, 공소외 1은 “나는 아니다”라고 말한 후 △△△△△에서 나와 공소외 24로부터 코트를 빌려 입은 후 택시를 타고 현장을 이탈하였다. 공소외 1은 택시에서 내려 여자친구인 공소외 4를 찾아갔고, 공소외 4에게 “자신은 손을 씻으려고 하였는데, 피고인이 피해자를 칼로 찔렀다”라는 말을 하고 잠시 잠을 잔 후 자신의 집으로 갔다. 이후 공소외 1의 상의와 하의는 세탁되었고, 공소외 1은 1997. 4. 8. 경찰서에 자진 출두하였다.

F) After entering △△△△△△, the Defendant’s criminal records

According to the Defendant’s protocol of partial police interrogation, the police officer against Nonindicted 5, and the prosecutor’s protocol of statement, etc., the following facts may be acknowledged. The Defendant took the Defendant’s stack in the toilet located in △△△△△△△, and took the Defendant’s stacks into the middle line, and used Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 8 in the front line, and went back to the 8 U.S. military forces with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 8. The Defendant 11, 11, and 20, 11, and 11, and 5, and the Defendant was asked at the Defendant’s seat. Furthermore, the Defendant discarded the Defendant’s blade for committing the crime, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and 5, etc., was arrested at △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and returned to Nonindicted 3’s house and 95, etc., after Nonindicted 97.

3) Determination

In light of the following circumstances recognized by the above facts and the evidence, Nonindicted Party 1’s knife Nonindicted Party 1’s knife with knife with the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1’s knife with the Defendant. Nonindicted Party 1, who became aware that the Defendant had committed a crime against Nonindicted Party 1, led Nonindicted Party 1 to a toilet depending on the victim, and the Defendant immediately entered Nonindicted Party 1 and then knife Nonindicted Party 1’s knife with the knife with the knife.

A) Whether the defendant or non-indicted 1 was unaware of "the facts that the other party would have a knife with the victim," or whether there was a possibility that he could have a knife witness the crime of this case in an unforeseeable situation (B, 4).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, Nonindicted Party 1’s statement or Nonindicted Party 1’s statement to the effect that “I am to the toilet because I see that I am to the toilet because I am to the knife I knife I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k I k

(1) As seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 1, before the victim entered the ○○○○○○○, met with the Defendant, etc., “I kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn kn k

(2) The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, unlike other daily behaviors when the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 toward a toilet, entered the toilet along with the victim, and had been punished for the instant crime at this place, and came from the toilet immediately after the commission of the crime.

(3) 피고인은 경찰 현장검증시 ‘피해자가 화장실 쪽으로 가면서 째려봐 기분이 나빴다’는 취지로 진술하였고(수사기록 제2521쪽), 피해자, 피고인, 공소외 1이 화장실로 향하는 것을 모두 지켜봤던 공소외 9는 ‘피해자가 화장실로 향한 후 “뭔가 보여주겠다”는 말이 들렸고, 피고인과 공소외 1이 피해자를 “따라”갔다’고 진술하였다(수사기록 제2150쪽). 한편, 공소외 8은 이 법정에서 과거에는 어려서 말하지 않았던 내용이 있었는데, 이로 인하여 지금까지 죄책감에 시달렸다며 ‘담배를 피우고 있는데 공소외 9가 본인에게 와서 “어서 가야한다(We've got to go)”는 말을 세 번하고, “피고인이 뭔가를 했다(영문 성명 생략)"는 말을 해 공소외 9 등과 함께 △△△△△로 올라갔다. 당시에는 이를 피고인이 누군가와 싸웠거나 누군가를 때렸다는 의미로 이해했다’는 취지로 진술하였다.

(4) After the occurrence of the instant crime, Nonindicted Party 1 stated that Nonindicted Party 2, etc., who was enrolled in △△△△△△△ after the instant crime, stated that “us has reached knife with the Defendant without any reason.”

(5) The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 did not have intended to rescue the victim at the time of the commission of the crime or reported the crime to the police, and the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 destroyed the evidence, such as clothes and knives, which were actively or passive after the occurrence of the crime, by changing or lending clothes in the vicinity of the scene of the crime.

B) Whether there is a possibility that both the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 have reached a knife (n)

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, in particular, the part of the victim's injury, the number of times of the crime tools, the place and time of the crime, etc., the defendant and the non-indicted 1 all have a knife the victim (n) and the non-indicted 1 are very rare (n). Therefore, one of the defendant and the non-indicted 1 witness that the remainder of the victim knife the victim, and as a result, "the non-indicted 1 showed that he knife the victim knife the victim," is consistent with the truth. One of the non-indicted 1's statements that "the defendant knife the victim."

(1) Since the tools of the instant crime are only one knife, both the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1, in order for the victim to be knifeed with a knife, the victim knife knife knife knife shall be transferred to another perpetrator while the act was committed, and the person to whom the knife knife knife shall have reached the victim again. To that end, the location of the crime must be replaced by one another, but the place of the crime is narrow, not easy, and if the victim resists against the victim, defense is likely to occur, but no defense is found from the body of the victim.

(2) In the court of the preceding case on September 11, 1998, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the attack against the victim was not 10 seconds,” and in this court, the Defendant stated that “the attack against the victim was an attack at a rapid speed.” As seen earlier, the victim’s right part at the right part was set up in the knife after the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife or with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife with the knife at the time, and the defense

(3) The knife used as a criminal tool is limited to 12.5 cm in length, and the Prosecutor’s Office and the Prosecutor’s Office, Nonindicted 14 stated in this Court that “The knife used as a criminal tool is a match knife used as a knife for the purpose of cutting off the arms of animals, and it is difficult to change the knife in the way of attacking the victim.” In light of these circumstances, it is difficult for the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 to take the knife the knife for a short time.

C) The grounds for recognizing that the Defendant got a victim with knife, and Nonindicted 1 was together with the Defendant at the scene of the instant crime under the condition that he was aware, or could have anticipated, of the fact that “the Defendant was knife with the victim.”

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of each judgment, the body of the perpetrator is highly likely to be exposed to a large number, and in particular, it is evident that the perpetrator's damages and losses were frequently charged. Nonindicted Party 1 met Nonindicted Party 2, etc. immediately without her grandchildren from ○○○ toilet and △△△△△△△△△△△, and was charged with a large amount of fluences in the time. On the other hand, the Defendant was fluenced into the body of the Defendant, such as her hand, hair, her head, and lower body, and was fluenced in the △△△△△△△△△△△ Hospital after she was taken from ○○○○○○○ toilet, and the Defendant was able to ask the Defendant with the victim's body, and thus, he did not fit the Defendant's credibility in the process of questioning the victim's body and the Defendant's body during the process of questioning the victim's body.

(1) It is apparent that, in the event of the act of harming the offender as described in the instant case, it would be particularly to ask a large number of people near the perpetrator's losses and losses.

아래와 같은 사정, 특히 가해자가 피해자와 근접하여 피해자를 칼로 찔렀고, 그 과정에서 피해자의 목 양쪽 부분과 가슴 부분에서 상당히 많은 피가 뿜어져 나오거나 솟아 나왔으며, 공격 횟수가 9회에 달하였고, 이미 피가 나오고 있던 부위와 인접한 부위에 수차례 공격이 이뤄졌으며, 오른쪽 소변기 우측 벽이나 세면대 거울에서 이탈 혈흔이 발견된 사정에 비추어 보면, 가해자의 상의, 하의, 몸에 피가 많이 묻게 될 가능성이 높고, 특히 칼을 쥔 오른손과 손목 부근에는 피가 많이 묻게 될 것이 명백하다.

(A) If a person knife kniff, it is obvious that the knife will become knife or knife, and there is no possibility that the knife will continue to exist in the first knife with the first knife. As seen earlier, the victim saw the right part of the knife in the direction opposite to the knife with the left hand, and at the same time runs away from the knife or knife to the knife. However, according to the autopsy report, photographic note, etc., the victim’s knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

(B) As seen earlier, after the perpetrator puts the right part of the victim's timber into the knife, the victim snifeed the right part of the knife with his left hand, and the perpetrator snife the knife part of the victim's chests twice and knife the knife part of the victim's chests more than four times. In particular, the perpetrator knife knife the part left part of the victim's knife and the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

(2) Nonindicted Party 1 immediately left the ○○ toilet and immediately went to △△△△△△△△, etc., and was not in a cleaning agent.

(A) Order from ○○ toilet

As recognized earlier, Nonindicted 9 started coming from the direction of Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 8, and Nonindicted 5 when the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 toward a toilet depending on the victim. However, Nonindicted 20 stated in the police and the prosecutor’s office that “ Nonindicted 9, who was going to the fourth floor and was going to the fourth floor, was to enter the entrance of ○○○○○○○○○, and Nonindicted 1 considered that he was coming to the Defendant after coming from the toilet.” (Article 224, 2514 of the Investigation Records). However, the statement by Nonindicted 20 alone cannot be confirmed that Nonindicted 1 went to the toilet before the Defendant, and at that time, the fact that Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant moved to the room is sufficiently recognized.

(B) Order of publication up to △△△△△△△△, order of entry into the toilet for △△△△△△△

Nonindicted 3 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “I were going to the △△△△△△, but I first moved to the △△△△△△△△△△△△, and later entered the Defendant’s office and the toilet after one minute (No. 2263 of the Investigation Records). Nonindicted 9 made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “I was going to the Defendant after Nonindicted 1 was going to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, I first come to the Defendant, and I went to the Defendant first come to the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and then the Defendant entered the said Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 9’s office, and the Defendant immediately entered the toilet and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, 2150 of the investigation Records.

① As seen earlier, Nonindicted 3 was already going to the direction of △△△△△△ when the Defendant and Nonindicted 1 toward the ○○○ toilet according to the victim, and Nonindicted 3, among the Defendant, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 3, was the first head of △△△△△△△△△△.

② The Defendant stated at the prosecution that “Nonindicted 3 was going to the toilet near △△△△△△,” and that “Nonindicted 3 was going to the toilet before September 11, 1998.” In the previous case, the Defendant stated that “Nonindicted 433 of the investigation record, who was going to the △△△△△△△△△△, was going to the toilet first.” On the other hand, the Defendant stated at the police that “Nonindicted 3 was off the Defendant’s convenience at the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△, and Nonindicted 3 was sent to the toilet first, and Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 20, and Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 209, and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 200, Nonindicted 200.”

③ During the on-site inspection of the police, Nonindicted Party 1 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted Party 5 met female-friendly job offers from the second floor stairs of △△△△△,” or “Defendant 5 reaches the △△△△△△,” and that Nonindicted Party 9 and Nonindicted Party 5, who was enrolled in the △△△△△△△△△ at the time of the investigation record, also went forward from the court of the preceding case on August 18, 1997, to the effect that “ Nonindicted Party 1 was going forward to go forward from the stairs of △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△”. In addition to Nonindicted Party 20’s prosecutor’s statement as seen in the above (2), it is recognized that Nonindicted Party 1 was going out of the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ at the time when Nonindicted Party 5 was enrolled in the previous case.

④ On June 19, 198, Nonindicted 1 stated in the preceding case’s court that “ Nonindicted 2 entered Nonindicted 1’s toilet and △△△△△△△△△△,” and that “the Defendant entered the fourth floor toilet and the fourth floor toilet.” Nonindicted 25, who had already been inside the toilet when entering the toilet for △△△△△△△, stated to the effect that “ Nonindicted 1 and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△,” and that Nonindicted 2, who had already been in the toilet for △△△△△△△△△, stated to the effect that “ Nonindicted 1 and △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was no longer likely to have entered the toilet for △△△△△△△△△△△,” and that Nonindicted 2 and 5, who had already been in the toilet for △△△△△△ was no more likely to have entered the toilet for △△△△△△△.”

(3) While the Defendant was asked for a large amount of her fingers, head, portrait, load, and her horses, Nonindicted Party 1 was asked for a small amount of her fingers.

In light of the following circumstances, considering the fact that the clothes of the defendant were brightnessed and that the clothes of non-indicted 1 were colored, it is recognized that at the time of coming from the ○○○ toilet, Non-indicted 1 was charged with a small amount of the skin, face, knife, brue, load, and brue, etc., while the defendant was asked with a large amount of the skin, face, brue, load, brue, brue, etc.

(A) The Defendant made the following statements with regard to the appearance of questioning by the Defendant. The Defendant made a statement at the police (3 times) to the effect that “I had a large number of fingers and faces.” The Defendant made a cleaning statement at the toilet for △△△△△△△, which stated in the prosecutor’s office to the effect that “I had a hand and face asked at the toilet for △△△△△△△△, and was hidden in keeping the hotel for △△△△△△△, including the two-day, the two-day, and kis, and kis from the next day.” On July 18, 1997, the Defendant made a statement in the court of the preceding case that “I asked the Defendant’s body,” and that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that I had a large number of facess and facess of the Defendant (the Defendant’s 20th of the investigation record and the Defendant’s 4th of the investigation record and the Defendant’s 20th of the investigation record.”

(B) Nonindicted 1’s statement on Nonindicted 2 was made to the effect that “Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, 2, and Nonindicted 2, 3, who was frighten in the lower court’s 6 line, made a statement to the effect that Nonindicted 3 was frighten and frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office.” However, Nonindicted 2, who was frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office, made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 2, 3, and was frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office.” Nonindicted 2, who was frighten and frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office, made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 4, 2, and Nonindicted 2, who was frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office, was frighten and frighten in the lower prosecutor’s office.” However, Nonindicted 2, who was frighten and frightt out of the lower police room, made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 8,” was fright.

(4) The grounds for questioning the victim and the witness of the crime are reliable in Nonindicted Party 1’s statement about the place where the crime was observed, and there is no credibility in the Defendant’s statement.

In light of the following circumstances, Non-Indicted 1’s statement to the effect that “the defendant observed the victim’s knife in the vicinity of the world” is relatively consistent, as well as is consistent with the objective evidence, and is credibility in line with the contents of the evidence, and the defendant’s statement to the effect that “Non-Indicted 1 observed the victim’s knife in the knife space between the wall on the right side and the right side of the three sides,” is not consistent, but is not consistent with the contents of objective evidence, and thus, is not credibility.

(A) Nonindicted 1 made a relatively consistent statement about the process during which the victim was asked and the place where the witness was observed. Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that, at the time of on-site inspection of the police station, on July 14, 1997, at the court inspection of the preceding case, Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was knife the victim by knife” (No. 2521, 2819 pages). Nonindicted 1 appeared to have knife the victim by knife knife at the court inspection of the preceding case on January 9, 198. Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “the victim was knife by knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k from the right part of the victim.

(B) On the other hand, the Defendant reversed the Defendant’s statement on the circumstances in which knife had been asked to the Defendant on a multiple occasions in her hand, head, etc. (three times). The Defendant stated in the police (three times) that “in the process of knifeing the Defendant and fnife the Defendant, knife the victim with the knife knife knife, and fnife the victim’s clothes while getting out of the Defendant’s clothes.” The Defendant stated at the prosecutor’s office (one time) that “the victim flife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knifed the Defendant’s face,” and made the Defendant’s statement to the effect that “the victim’s face k k k k k.”

However, on July 14, 197, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim’s body was cut off and the victim was used before the left-hand son,” and that “the victim was pushed off by the victim’s body before the left-hand son.” On the previous case, the Defendant changed his statement to the effect that “the victim was pushed down by the victim’s body 1 and the victim was pushed down by the victim’s face 1 and the victim was pushed down by the victim’s body 9 minutes before the victim’s body.” On July 18, 1997, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the victim was released by the victim’s 1 and the victim’s body was protrudingd by the victim’s 1 and the victim’s body was 8 minutes before the victim’s body, and that it was hard for the victim to see the victim’s body later than the victim’s left 9 minutes.”

(C) According to the above facts, a small amount of body was released from the witness’s body in the form of a press or water locking on the front of the third party. There is a high possibility that the offender’s body was exposed, while a large amount of body was released from the witness’s body on the right side of the third party, a large amount of body was released from the witness’s body expected at the front of the third party, and a small amount of body was released from the victim’s body in the form of a press or water locking on the perpetrator’s body is less likely to occur. In other words, the victim’s right side part was taken in the opposite direction immediately after the attack on the part of the victim’s body, and even if the victim’s body was her hand, it seems difficult to see the victim’s body from the front side part to the right side part of the victim’s body at the right side of the victim’s body, and thus, it is difficult to see the victim’s body from the front and the right side part 1 to 250cm p.

(D) As recognized earlier, Nonindicted Party 1, before the victim entered ○○○, knife knife knife knife knife knife, and the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 met with the Defendant, etc., and the Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 metdd the victim toward the toilet direction and went into the toilet depending on the victim. On this premise, in order to witness “the victim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife”, Nonindicted Party 1 refused to commit a crime with the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to commit a crime with Nonindicted Party 1’s intention to exclude him from the Defendant, Nonindicted Party 1’s attempt to commit a crime with Nonindicted Party 1’s knife knife knife knife knife knife.

① 피해자가 ○○○으로 들어와 화장실 방향으로 향할 때 피고인, 공소외 1과 가장 가까운 거리에 있었던 공소외 9는 검찰에서 ‘어떤 사람이 화장실에 가는 것을 보고 공소외 1이 피고인에게 “I'm going to show you something cool. Come in the bathroom with me"라고 하면서 화장실로 들어가는 것을 보았다’는 취지로 진술하였다(수사기록 제2140쪽). 그러나 공소외 9는 같은 날 검찰에서 피고인, 공소외 1과 대질조사를 받으면서 ‘누군가가 위와 같은 말을 한 것은 사실이지만 누가 말하였는지는 모른다’고 진술을 번복하였다(수사기록 제2150쪽). 공소외 9는 1997. 8. 18. 선행사건 법정에서 ‘위와 같은 말을 들었던 것은 확실하지만 본인의 등 뒤에서 말하여 누가 말하였는지는 모르고, 공소외 1이 위와 같은 말을 했다고 진술한 사실이 없다’고 진술하여(수사기록 제2864쪽) 번복 진술을 유지하였다. 따라서 공소외 9의 최초 검찰 진술만으로 공소외 1이 위와 같은 말을 하였다고 단정할 수 없다.

② 공소외 1은 범행 직후 △△△△△에서 공소외 2 등 다수의 사람들이 있는 가운데 낄낄대고 웃으며 “우리가 방금 재미로 누군가의 목과 가슴을 칼로 찔렀다”라는 말을 하고, 피 묻은 부분을 스스로 보여주었다. 이후 공소외 1은, 자신의 말을 확인하기 위해 ○○○ 화장실을 다녀온 공소외 2로부터 ㉠ 피해자가 죽었다는 사실을 전해 들음과 동시에 ㉡ 공소외 1이 피해자를 칼로 찌른 것이 아닌지를 추궁당하자 그 시점부터 범행을 강하게 부인하면서 자신은 피고인의 범행을 우연히 목격한 것이라고 주장하기 시작하였다. 그 후 공소외 1은 △△△△△에서 나왔고, 이때 공소외 1을 만난 공소외 23은 미군 범죄수사대와 경찰에서 ‘공소외 1이 기겁하며 △△△△△가 있던 건물에서 밖으로 나왔고, 미친 것처럼 보였으며, 당황한 것 같았고, 몸을 떨며 정신 나간 사람처럼 행동하였다’는 취지로 진술하였다. 이러한 진술에 비추어 보면, 공소외 1은 타인을 칼로 찌른 행위에 자신이 개입되었음을 스스로 인정하며 재미로 위와 같은 행동을 하였다고 과시하다가 피해자가 죽었다는 말을 전해 듣고는 상황의 심각성을 인식하게 되었고, 이후 극도로 당황하여 자신의 개입 사실을 강하게 부인하기 시작한 것으로 보인다. 만일 공소외 1이 피고인에게 피해자에 대한 범행을 충동하였으나 피해자가 이를 거부하여 자신이 피해자를 칼로 찌른 것이라면, 공소외 1이 친구들에게 범행을 과시하는 한편, 범행을 거부하고 이를 목격한 것에 불과한 피고인을 포함하여 “우리가” 범행을 하였다고 말하였을 가능성은 희박하다. 또 다수의 사람들에게 “우리가 방금 재미로 누군가의 목과 가슴을 칼로 찔렀다”라고 말하는 경우 자신이 피해자를 칼로 찌른 것이 아니라고 하더라도 피해자의 사망에 대한 책임을 면하기 어려우므로 공소외 1이 책임을 회피하거나 줄이기 위하여 “우리가” 범행을 하였다고 말하였을 가능성도 희박하다.

③ On the other hand, as recognized earlier, Nonindicted 8 stated in this court that “Nonindicted 9 told that she would go to △△△△△△.” Nonindicted 5 made a statement at the police that “Nonindicted 5 would come to △△△△△,” that “Nonindicted 5 would have a day off on which the Defendant was working at △△ hotel on the day of the crime,” but Nonindicted 20 made a statement to the effect that “Nonindicted 5 would have no other talk.” Nonindicted 20 asked the police to the effect that “I and other friendships would turn to knife the victim, knife the victim,” but the Defendant did not respond to any question at the police (Article 2514 of the Investigation Record). In the meantime, Nonindicted 19 was asked at the court of the preceding case that “Nonindicted 5 would have died of the victim,” and that Nonindicted 5 would not have made a statement that “Nonindicted 5 would have died from Nonindicted 8’s accusation.”

C. Whether Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant conspired to murder the victim

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence of the judgment, Nonindicted 1’s conspiracy with the Defendant to kill the victim is recognized.

1) As seen earlier, Nonindicted Party 1’s shocked the Defendant, and the Defendant was recognized to have killed the victim in a knife. Of course, Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 1 could have sufficiently predicted that the knife in a knife would cause the death of the victim, and that if the knife does not take relief measures even though the knife is considerable to the knife, the possibility may be higher.

2) Nonindicted 1 made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant was guilty of committing the crime, and the Defendant did not think that he actually committed the crime.” However, Nonindicted 1 did not prevent the Defendant even though the Defendant committed several attacks on the victim, and the victim did not take any particular relief measures despite the knife that the knife would have been faced with a considerable amount of knife on the knife, and rather expressed the fact of committing the crime to the knife. Furthermore, it is recognized that Nonindicted 1 had clearly perceived that “the Defendant was knife with the victim,” before entering the toilet, Nonindicted 1 was aware of “the fact that the Defendant was knife with the victim.”

3) Nonindicted 1 expressed his motive to commit the crime immediately after the crime, and Nonindicted 1 expressed his motive to commit the crime on the grounds that he reached knife. Nonindicted 1’s motive to commit the crime is consistent with that of the Defendant.

4) According to Nonindicted 18 and Nonindicted 15’s police and this legal statement, the fact that there was no number of customers at the time of the instant crime is recognized. However, due to the characteristics of the public restaurant toilet, in the event only the Defendant commits a crime, it cannot be ruled out the possibility that a third party would have controlled the Defendant and the Defendant using a toilet or witness the Defendant to commit a crime, and it is difficult to control the victim’s resistance. If we further examine the circumstances that Nonindicted 1 stated that “I knife our knife with knife,” immediately after the instant crime was committed, Nonindicted 1 appears to have entered the toilet with the Defendant to monitor that “I knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife”

D. As to other allegations

1) The assertion that the licensee is a criminal with great height and power;

On January 13, 1998, Nonindicted 12, who prepared a written appraisal of autopsy, stated in the court of the preceding case, that “The height of the victim was larger than 180cm, and considerable power was committed in the state of mental disorder or reconcilation. At the time of committing the crime, Nonindicted 12 was presumed to have been committed. At the time of committing the crime, the Defendant’s height was merely 172 cm, and the body weight was merely 60 km, so it is impossible to see the part of the victim’s neck above the above. In short, when the same is seen to be well, it is difficult for the victim to see. In addition, Nonindicted 12, at the court of the preceding case on July 15, 1998, Nonindicted 12 stated to the effect that “It is difficult to see that there was no anti-concilation,” and that there was no resistance from the scene to the effect that the crime was committed at the left.”

However, at the court of the preceding case on January 13, 1998, Non-Indicted 12 stated to the effect that “I am kn't k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's k's.'s k's k's k's k's.

2) The assertion that Non-Indicted 1 committed the crime in a state of decilation because he murdered a person without any awareness of satise, Non-Indicted 1 was a person handling narcotics, and was engaged in abnormal behavior after committing the crime.

The Defendant and Nonindicted Party 1 did not detect narcotics ingredients as a result of the hair and urine appraisal, and there is no statement suggesting that the Defendant or Nonindicted Party 1 engaged in narcotics on the day of the crime, or that the Defendant or Nonindicted Party 1 was in a decover state in the statement of the related persons. On the other hand, if the Defendant or Nonindicted Party 1 committed a crime in a decover state, the perpetrator would not be able to make an accurate attack over several times on the adjacent side at the rapid speed that the victim would not raise. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3) On the other hand, the Defendant did not seem to have any false response as a result of the examination of the false horses detection devices, and on the other hand, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s statement conforms to the truth.

Although it is known that there is a considerable accuracy in a case where the premise requirement is satisfied, the prosecutor’s false horses detection machine may always show a considerable accuracy, the results of the examination cannot be deemed to be consistent with the truth at all times, and even in a case where the premise requirement is satisfied, the result of the examination is sufficient to function as circumstantial evidence to measure the credibility of the statement of the person who undergoes the examination (see Supreme Court Decision 87Do968, Jul. 21, 1987). Therefore, as seen earlier, there are a number of direct and indirect evidence directly supporting the fact that the defendant has reached the victim knife, and there are false reactions to the victim as a result of the examination of the false horses detection machine, and there is no reasonable doubt as to the crime of this case solely on the ground that the defendant did not have any false response to the defendant

4) The non-indicted 1 reported the non-indicted 1 to the U.S. military police unit that "the defendant killeds the victim," and opened Babur on the day following the crime, and the defendant had a prejudice to the criminal investigation cost of the U.S. military and investigated the defendant. Thus, the contents of the written oath and the statement cannot be trusted.

There is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that Nonindicted 1 reported the criminal facts of the Defendant to the U.S. military police unit, or that Nonindicted 1 opened LBC. In addition, on January 13, 1998, Nonindicted 16 stated in the court of the preceding case that “at the time of investigating the Defendant, Nonindicted 1 was aware of the fact that Nonindicted 1 was in existence at the time of investigating the Defendant, and that Nonindicted 1 was also a suspect.” The written oath is prepared after being notified of the fact that there was a risk of punishment if preparing false contents as seen earlier, and includes the contents of direct experience. This part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

1. The scope of punishment by law: 20 years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Punishment】 Murder of homicide (Type 3)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Crumar method of crime

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of not less than 15 years, life imprisonment (aggravated Field)

3. Determination of sentence: 20 years of imprisonment; and

The Defendant murdered, without any particular reason, by attacking the victim at the time of committing the crime on the site where hambs committed the crime. However, even if the Defendant committed the crime at the time of committing the crime, the instant crime was committed, 3 times with the above knife, 4 times with the left part of the victim’s knife, and 5 times with the victim’s immediate death, and is very bad in terms of the method of committing the crime, danger, and result of the crime. The Defendant’s crime of this case lost his life, which is the premise of all fundamental rights, including human dignity and value, and the right to pursue happiness. As such, even if the victim’s life was committed, the Defendant was unable to take account of all the circumstances leading up to the death of the victim, and the Defendant was unable to be able to fully deprived of his/her life during his/her first sentence of punishment by committing the crime at the time of committing the crime of this case. The Defendant’s 1’s knife and his/her bereaved family members, who died of the victim.

Judges Dak-si (Presiding Judge)

1) Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the principle of prohibition of double punishment cannot be tried again for the same case once a judgment becomes final and conclusive (see Constitutional Court Order 92Hun-Ba38, Jun. 30, 1994). Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act is a provision specifying the above purport. However, Nonindicted 1 is not likely to be punished for the same case as the Defendant and the Defendant are not prosecuted for the same case as the judgment becomes final and conclusive after having been sentenced not guilty for the same criminal facts as the instant criminal facts. Accordingly, even if Nonindicted 1 is recognized as co-defendant in the instant criminal facts, it cannot be viewed as going against the purport of Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea or Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Therefore, if the facts charged in the instant case are found guilty, the Defendant is entitled to remedy through a retrial or criminal compensation system.

Note 3) Although Article 2081 of the Investigation Record states that “I are in a state of decrasion caused by narcotics,” in light of the police statements made by Nonindicted 23, it appears that “Freaing out” in Article 2083 of the Investigation Record appears to be erroneous.