Do 2016 17827 A. homicide

(b) Destruction of carcasses;

(c) dead abandonment;

(d)porting the corpse;

(e) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse);

(f) Violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment or neglect);

(g) Violation of the Road Traffic Act (non-licensed driving);

2016 Issuance of an order to attach 164 (Joint)

A

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Attorneys BY (Kukkiwon)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No 1695, 2016 No. 118 (Joint) decided October 14, 2016

Judgment

December 29, 2016

all appeals shall be dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are determined.

1. Examining the reasoning of the original judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court which maintained the reasoning of the original judgment as to Defendant B, it is justifiable to determine that the facts charged in the instant case, among the facts charged for the same reason as the judgment in the original judgment, should be recognized as guilty, and there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to intentional murder in violation of the logical and empirical rules, such as the assertion of the grounds of appeal.

In addition, considering the age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment of the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant"), relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and various circumstances that are subject to the conditions of sentencing specified in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, etc., it is not extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced the Defendant and his defense counsel of the lower court for 30 years, even if considering the circumstances in which the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted, it is extremely unfair to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for 30 years.

2. The assertion to the effect that the attachment order of an electronic device for tracking the location of the case for which the attachment order was requested is unfair, is asserted only when it was raised in the final appeal to the court of final appeal that the Defendant’s claim was based on the appeal or that it was not subject to the judgment at the court below’s discretion, and it does not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Poe-dae

Justices Park Poe-young

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Kim Jae-hyung