2017Do10828(a) homicide

B. Abandonment of a dead body

(c) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.;

D. Robbery;

(e) Fraud;

(f) Robbery;

G. Violation of the Personal Information Protection Act

(h) Violation of the Medical Service Act;

1. (a) b. d. D:

2. (c) g. H. BF;

3. (f) BG

4. C. BH.

Defendants and Prosecutor (Defendant D)

Attorney DZ (for the national line, defendant D)

Attorney EA (for national ships, Defendant BF)

Attorney EB (for national ships, Defendant BG)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2016No236-1 (Separation), 2017No23 (Consolidation) decided June 30, 2017

Judgment

November 9, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

A. The court below maintained the first instance court which acquitted the co-defendant C of this part of the charges on the ground that it is difficult to view that the facts charged that Co-defendant C took part in the crime of co-principal with the approval of the fact that Co-defendant C would take money by kidnapping the victim BS and murder at least, even if do not do so, it is sufficiently proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding willful negligence or by misapprehending the rules of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

B. In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s measure that rejected Defendant D’s application for changes in indictment cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the identity of the facts charged.

C. The prosecutor appealed the entire judgment of the court below as to Defendant D, but did not state the grounds for objection on the remaining parts in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

2. As to Defendant D’s ground of appeal

A. The lower court found Defendant D guilty of murdering the Victim K in the instant facts charged on the ground that Defendant D conspired with C to commit a joint process with the intent of murdering the Victim K, on the following grounds: (a) recognizing or predicting that Defendant C was likely to kill the Victim K and shared the essential part of the elements for the crime of murder with the mutual understanding that Defendant D shared the essential part of the elements for the crime of murder; and (b) Defendant D continued to play a key role with C in the process of committing the entire crime; and (c) Defendant D continued to play a key role in the process of committing the crime.

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court did not err in its judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the requirements for the establishment of a joint principal offender, or by misapprehending the facts concerning the apportionment of an act of practice, conspiracy, murder, etc. in violation of the rules of evidence.

B. The lower court determined that: (a) Defendant D took into account the following circumstances: (b) he was aware of the homicide’s murdering of the victim BS, and took part in the murdering of the victim; (c) he took part in the murdering of the victim; (d) he took part in the murdering of the victim C with the intent to receive money; and (e) took part in the murdering of the victim C with the intent to obtain money; and (e) Defendant D took part in the murdering of the victim K; (b) Defendant D took part in the murdering of the victim; and (c) Defendant D took part in the murdering of the victim C with the intent to obtain money; and (d) Defendant D took part in the murdering of the victim; and (e) Defendant D took into account the fact that there was no agreement with the victim and no effort to recover damage; and (e) Defendant D took into account the fact that it did not comply with the remainder of the murdering for the victim; and (e) Defendant D was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a more than two years.

Examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant D’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which are acknowledged based on records and evidence, there are substantial grounds to recognize that the sentencing of the lower court sentenced to 24 years to Defendant D is extremely unfair even in consideration of various circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

shall not be subject to an appeal.

3. Examining the grounds of appeal by Defendant BF in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found Defendant BF guilty of all the remainder of the charges except for robbery among the instant charges against Defendant BF, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the scope of application of joint penal provisions of Article 83 of the Automobile Management Act or by misapprehending the facts

4. While examining Defendant BG’s grounds of appeal in accordance with the relevant legal principles and evidence, the lower court found Defendant BG guilty of the instant facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the intent of the principal offender and the degree of proof required in the criminal trial, or by misapprehending the facts contrary

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for more than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant BG, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable is not legitimate

5. As to Defendant BH’s grounds of appeal, Defendant BH did not submit the grounds of appeal within the submission period, and Defendant BH did not state the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal.

6. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Jung-hwa

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Jeju High Court Justice Kim Shin -

Justices Park Sang-ok