2017Gohap241 Murder (a recognized crime of murder), abandonment of a dead body

2017. Consolidated order for attachment

2017Report1(Consolidated) Probation Order

A

The highest heading, Nascining, Nascining, Nascining, Mascining, Mascining, and Mascining

Law Firm B, Attorneys C, D, and E

September 22, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

To the person subject to the request for attachment order, the attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered for 30 years.

Matters to be observed in the attached Form shall be imposed on the person requested to attach an attachment order.

Criminal facts and the facts constituting the cause of attachment order 1)

【Criminal Facts】

1. homicide;

A. Relationship between the defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") and F

The Defendant and F came to know through G’s so-called G’s character around February 2017, and the Defendant graduated from ○○ Women’s High School located in Seoul around February 2017, and was re-born in preparing for university entrance, and around June 2016, F was a person who was in the first-year course of ○○ Women’s High School located in Incheon, and prepared for examination.

The defendant and the F have given personal contacts and accumulated friendship even after the above character has completed the community activities.

(b) Invitation of crimes;

Defendant and F have been interested in the case of murder, autopsy of corpse, human body body, etc., or related movies, novels, etc., and the Defendant was interested in the specific body organization of a person, such as fingers and pulmonary organs. The Defendant and F, on March 2017, intended to murder a person on behalf of the Defendant who wishes to have part of his body, such as fingers and labs and pulmonary organs, and recruited the specific plan as follows.

First of all, among the defendant and F, the commission of murdering a person was made by F. This is because F would have been able to do murder by taking violence and cruelness into account during the first day of F nature.

In relation to the object of crime, Defendant and F were aimed at a weak person such as elementary school low-class. In this case, even if the victim's resistance, etc. occurs, it was thought that the body of the Gu could suppress the victim relatively small F.

In relation to the place of crime and the place of abandonment of a corpse after crime, the method of committing the crime at a private teaching institute or apartment rooftop, which is not possible to identify the suspect, was discussed.

In order to realize the complete crime, the Defendant had F pay attention to confirm the existence and location of the surrounding CCTV (closed television) before committing the crime, and, furthermore, ordered F to avoid being exposed to the identity of F in advance when entering a place where CCTV is likely to be installed.

F, in accordance with the above murder plan with the Defendant, the F studies on the method of removing the scams completely through the Internet search from March 2017, 2017, or on the contents of the "An all-round crime," which was found in the case, which was not found a criminal, and conducted preparation procedures for murder by identifying in advance the location of CCTV installed around the F's apartment house.

C. Execution of murder crime

1) On March 28, 2017, the day before the instant crime was committed, the Defendant and F had frequent conversations from around March 28, 2017 to around March 29, 2017. In other words, the Defendant and F sent approximately 15 minutes from around 20:4 on March 28, 2017 to around 20:59; from around 21:06 on March 28, 2017 to around 21:47, up to around 21:40:0:07 to around 00:32, from around 25 minutes on March 29, 2017 to around 00:01:00 on March 29, 2017 to around 3:4:30 on the Defendant and F.1 on April 24, 2017 to the Defendant and F.3 (hereinafter “the Defendant and F.3”).

2) On March 29, 2017, F sent a so-called ‘scam match' that helps the Defendant look at an object of crime while visiting an elementary school near his apartment house with the intent of making it difficult for him to confirm the identity even if being marked on the CCTV around the A.M., with the aforementioned uniform, F sent a so-called ‘cam-called ‘cam match' photograph taken by a mixed person with the intent of using it as text messages for the purpose of viewing it as being unrelated to the region. The F sent the so-called ‘ccella' photograph taken by a person with the aforementioned uniform at around 10:50 on March 29, 2017.

On March 29, 2017, from around 10:56 to around 11:07, the Defendant and F made a telephone call to the Defendant for about 11 minutes, and the Defendant called “F to get off an elementary school playground from the apartment house in Korea”, and the Defendant confirmed “I am dead from one out of the forum, I amba, I amba, I amba, I amba.” In addition, the Defendant and F made a telephone call for about 45 minutes from around 11:29 to December 14, 2017, and the Defendant responded that “I am a few times at elementary school” to “I am a few times from 12:0 to 12:0.0”

3) On March 29, 2017, at around 12:18, F was asked by the victim J (L, 7 years old) on March 29, 2017, to look at the F’s house of F in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City H’s ○○○dong ○○○○○, and its nearby ○○ Elementary School, and black the object of crime. Of that, on March 29, 2017, F was asked by the victim J (L, e.g., “I have to go by telephone, but I can get a cell phone leased.” F was thought to have been released more easily than that he planned, and was willing to attract the victim at his own house.

F was not only the filling state of a mobile phone, but also the victim was not able to use it because of the fact that the phone call exceeds the amount agreed at the time, but also was the situation where the victim was unable to use it only because of the original reception. As a result, the victim made a false statement that "the phone call to the home phone with our house," and enticed the victim.

4) F은 2017. 3. 29. 12:49경 피해자를 데리고 자신의 집 아파트 엘리베이터를 타고, 자신의 집이 아닌 13층에서 내려 집으로 돌아온 후, 거실에서 피해자로 하여금 고양이 등과 함께 놀게 만든 다음, 몰래 피해자 뒤에서 태블릿 컴퓨터의 전깃줄로 피해자의 목을 졸라 기절시켰다. F은 바로 2017. 3. 29. 13:00경 모바일 애플리케이션인 K의 문자메시지 서비스를 통해, 피고인에게 '잡아왔어', '상황이 좋았어', '집에서 전화를 쓰게 해주겠다며 데리고 왔어'라는 내용을 전송하였다. 그러자 피고인은 F에게 '살아있어?', 'CCTV는 확인했어?'라고 물었고, F은 '아직 살아 있어', '여자애야', '목에 전선을 감아놨어'라고 답변하였다. 피고인은 F에게 '손가락이 예쁘냐'라고 물어보았고, F은 '손가락이 예쁘다'라고 답하였다. F은 피고인과의 K 채팅을 마친 후, 기절한 피해자의 목에 걸려 있던 전깃줄을 더욱 강하게 졸라 피해자를 살해하였다.

(d) Destruction and damage of the F body;

1) In order to recover part of the body of fingers and waste as originally planned with the Defendant, F, around March 29, 2017, 13:10, in order to murder the victim and recover part of the body in collusion with the Defendant, F, on March 29, 2017, exempted the victim’s body from the clothes of the body to the toilet bed, in whole. F, with a knife knife (total length: 31cm, 22cm: 22cm) located in the main room, while in the main room, he continued to cut the body into two upper half and lower half half, cut the body, cut the body into two upper half and lower half, cut the body, and cut the body back to the remainder, excluding part of the waste, and cut the body back to the left part of the lower half of the body to dry end.

2) After F’s completion of the destruction and damage of a dead body as seen above, when the overall form of a damaged dead body was seen, F sent a message to the Defendant, which read “Abrupted and unstable” on March 29, 2017, and thereby, on March 13:37, 2017, the Defendant and F sent the message to the Defendant, “Abrupted and Dominated.” Accordingly, the Defendant and F sent a call again for about eight minutes from March 29, 2017 to 13:46. In this monetary process, F reads that the Defendant “obrud and killed in the front eye,” “obrued,” “abruing,” “L,” and “L,” etc. to F.

3) At around 14:00 on March 29, 2017, F sought stability after the call with the above Defendant, and entered the upper half and lower half of which from 14:00 one’s home to 2 in two plastic garbage bags (20 L). The F first put the plastic garbage bags containing the lower half of the body into a large bridge, and then put them into the top of the rooftop water tank building by first cutting down from her home to the rooftop through emergency stairs, and then throw down it into the top of the rooftop water tank building. The upper half of the body was discarded into the top of the rooftop water tank building in such a way as the above.

4) Meanwhile, the Defendant and F currency from March 29, 2017 to around 14:22, around 3 minutes, from around 14:52, to around 14:58. During this currency process, F called “the Defendant, who has arranged the body, has completed cleaning the bath room,” and the Defendant responded to this. The Defendant responded. F, around 15:00 on March 29, 2017, put the remainder of the period, excluding the death and finger of the body, was put into a food waste collection box on the first floor of his house apartment complex.

(e) rest of the defendant and F.

1) On March 29, 2017, F: (a) around 17:44, at the N Station located in Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul, the Defendant met the Defendant, or the Defendant “Is up to be frighted, closed, closed.” The Defendant and F sent an envelope containing a part of the victim’s body, such as fingers, waste, and buckbucks, which are part of the victim’s body. Afterward, the Defendant and F took the direction of the “O” in the direction of the Defendant’s place in the N Station, and the F responded respondeded that “I would take means” to F, and “Is back to the back” to “Is off.”

2) 피고인과 F은 2017. 3. 29. 18:00경 서울 마포구 P에 있는 'O' 술집에서 피고인의 계산으로 칵테일을 한 잔씩 마셨고, 피고인은 해당 술집의 화장실에서 F으로부터 건네받은 종이봉투 안에 담겨 있던 검은색 비닐봉투를 꺼내어 묶여 있던 봉투 입구를 풀고, 그 안에 피해자 사체의 일부인 손가락과 폐, 허벅지 살이 들어있다는 사실을 확인하였다. 피고인은 화장실에서 나와 F에게 "확인했다"라고 말하였고, F으로부터 "손가락 예쁘지?"라는 질문을 받고서는 "예쁘더라"라고 답하였다. 이어서 F이 피고인에게 폐와 허벅지의 크기에 대해 "그 정도면 충분하냐?"라고 묻자, 피고인은 "이 정도면 충분하다"라고 답변하였다.

3) At around 19:15 on March 29, 2017, the Defendant and F, who moved to a studio Q Q Q Q Q, were called “on the ground of the police” from her mother to her mother, and around 20:2 on March 29, 2017, at around 20:31, the Defendant and F deleted both the K hosting content and R’s multiple-choice message (DM).

Accordingly, the defendant and F conspired murdered a person.

2. Abandonment of the dead body.

Around 10:00 on March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) used a bags for kitchen use at ○○ apartment ○○○○○ Dong, a house of the Defendant in Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, Seoul; (b) used a bags for kitchen use at that place; (c) used a pipe of plastic bags; and (d) made the fingers, fingers, waste, etc., part of the J body dried from the preceding F, and abandoned the said apartment complex by mixing it with food waste.

Accordingly, the defendant abandons the dead body of J.

【Factal Facts of Attachment Order】

In light of the motive and background leading up to the instant crime, the method of committing the instant crime, the circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., there is a risk of recommitting the murder crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F in part;

1. A copy of the investigation report (a confirmation, etc. of the body cutting devices), a copy of the investigation report (a confirmation of the details of the F mobile phone search), a copy of the investigation report (Flue search and confirmation of the monetary fact with A), a copy of the investigation report (a request for an appraisal), a copy of the investigation report (a request for an appraisal), and a copy of the investigation

1. A copy of on-site identification report, a copy of the actual survey report, and a copy of a response to a request for digital evidence analysis;

1. Photographs;

1. The risk of recidivism in the judgment: The following circumstances recognized by the records of the instant case, including the above evidence and the statement of the claim advance investigation statement, and the character and conduct of the Defendant, the environment, the motive and background of the instant crime, the method and content thereof, and the situation before and after the instant crime, are recognized as having the risk of recommitting the murder crime.

① As indicated in the judgment, the Defendant conspiredd to commit the instant crime that is intended to cause damage to the corpse with F and children, and furthermore, came to receive part of the victim’s body from F. The occurrence of the instant crime is significant and there is a very cruel method to commit the instant crime, and the social risk is also high.

② Nevertheless, the Defendant appears to have denied the participation in the crime during the investigation process from the investigative process to the court and have avoided liability.

③ The Defendant was interested in a certain physical part, personal land, etc., and the interest was not only in the virtual world but also in the actual crime.

④ The crime of this case is committed against a child who does not have awareness of being subject to the crime, and the defendant seems to have been committed solely with no specific motive for committing the crime against the victim, and the defendant's attitude toward life is considerably serious.

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 250(1) and 30(a) of the Criminal Act; Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of dead body) (the occupation of dead body)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as punishment has been more severe than that of imprisonment for life, no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Orders to attach an electronic tracking device;

Article 5(3), Article 9(1)1, the main sentence of Article 9-2(1), Article 9-2(1)1, Article 2-2 and 3 of the Act on Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The crime of murder in this case was established by F with a mixed plan. The Defendant did not have conspired with F to commit murder, and the Defendant did not expect or recognize the crime of murder in this case since it was thought that the role of F was led to the dialogue with F on the day of the crime, although there was little contact with F on the day of the crime, and there was no perception that it was an actual situation.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

A co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, such as the implementation of a crime through functional control over a criminal act based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-principal. Even in a case where part of the conspiracys have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the elements of a crime, if it is acknowledged that a functional control exists through an essential contribution to a crime rather than a simple conspiracys, rather than through a mere conspiracys, a crime cannot be exempted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do2021, May 13, 2011). Meanwhile, in a co-principal, it is not necessary to determine in detail the specific date, time, place, contents, etc. of the conspiracy with respect to the crime, and it is sufficient to determine only that the conspiracy has been established with respect to the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 205Do29305, Mar. 8, 196; 2008Do53716).

B. Key issue of the instant case

The Defendant, from the investigative agency to this court, denies F’s awareness of, or awareness about, the murder committed by F, as well as the F’s awareness of, and awareness about, the murder committed by F, while recognizing some conversations with F, asserts that this was done with awareness of the role polarization or virtual circumstances. However, F had already been recruited or planned by the Defendant for the instant crime, such as the facts charged, and thus, the Defendant was deemed to have been aware of all the circumstances at the time of the instant murder.

In the instant case, it seems that the Defendant and F directly appear that there remains no evidence to prove or prove the relationship between the Defendant and F (in this case, R & K messages divided by the Defendant and F before and after the occurrence of the instant case, and K, etc. Social Network Services (SNS), and most of the facts charged by the prosecution are based on the Defendant and F’s statement among the facts charged by the prosecution. In the end, the issue in the instant case is whether F conspireds with the Defendant to kill the victim and destroy the body, and whether the Defendant was aware of the body part of the body, and the direct evidence corresponding thereto is almost F’s statement. As examined below, the court should determine the credibility of the Defendant’s statement by taking into account the motive for the instant crime committed by the Defendant and F, the details and reversal of the F’s statement, the Defendant’s form and content, etc.

(c) The motive and purpose of committing the F;

1) The defendant's interest in

The Defendant and F came to know in the so-called character G dealing with the daily life of Etha, and the Defendant was aware of the name of ‘T' in the above community as a wharf-level character, and F as a character of ‘U' in the formation cause. The Defendant’s character was a character of human body, and “V, one of the multiple characters created by the Defendant, separately from the above community, refers to a character with no right hand, and the Defendant refers to a talk about the paper waste and the new fingers in his writing.

2) Contents of conversation between the Defendant and F immediately before the instant crime

앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 범행 직전 피고인과 F 사이에는 빈번한 통화내역이 확인되는바, F과 피고인은 이 사건 범행을 앞두고 약 1주일 전 '(어떤) 장기를 가져다 줄까'(F), '폐와 손가락 정도(피고인)라는 취지의 대화를 나눴다(다만 이에 대해 피고인은 수사기관에서부터 이 법정에 이르기까지 실제 상황을 염두에 두고 한 대화는 아니라고 주장하면서 그 인식 정도를 다투고 있다).

3) The peculiar nature of the circumstances immediately after the crime of murder in this case

After committing the instant murder, the behavior of F is difficult to be seen as ordinary behavior after committing the murder. In other words, the instant crime was committed at F’s residence on a normal day, and F was committed while living together with his parents and siblings. At the time, the parents of F was in attendance at school, but the same was planned to return home in P.M., and even after the birth was returned to her home in the actual F’s body damage and field adjustment process, there was a situation where the birth was returned to her home and again returned to her home. In ordinary cases, if family members had committed the instant crime at home freely and freely, it was urgent to promptly arrange the scene in preparation for the occurrence of the crime, conceal the body, etc. (The actualF sawd the victim to dive his identity while attracting him and her uniforms, and she satn out his CCTV with his own view to raising the relevant local residents, etc., and she satisf and she did not appear in his/her CCTV with his/her own view.

However, in such critical circumstances, F sent the victim's right fingers well beyond the convenience of transportation for the abandonment of the body (F, because it is impossible to use the bones in this court, was almost removed and stated that the body was removed and removed). The victim's boat was cut off, and bucks were cut down well, and bucks were sucks and bucks were stored in the water in order to deduct the victim from the body separately from other organs. If the F was the purpose of murder itself, even if there was any knowledge of autopsy or interest in this field, it did not have experience in doing so against the actual human body, it seems that the Defendant and the Defendant did not immediately initiate the criminal procedure on the other hand, such as cutting off the body or decomposition it within the long time (in the absence of experience in doing so, it appears that F did not start the criminal procedure on the other hand, and that it did not start the criminal procedure on the part of the Defendant and the Defendant at the scene and did not start the criminal procedure on the other hand.

On April 11, 2017, the defendant responded to the second interrogation of the police officer on April 11, 2017, that "I think that the reason why F cutting off the fingers first and collecting the organs and keeping the waste separately is what is" was the reason why F did not take it out before the investigation agency's question, because I would like to say that I want the fingers and the degree of the waste if I want to take it out for a long time."

○ Meanwhile, from the time of murdering the victim, F made a call over about 1 hours to 14:19 hours and 14:52 hours from the time of murdering the victim on about two occasions, and the Defendant was able to make a full-time promise on the day, and around 17:44 hours on the day, the Defendant was able to talk with the said method, and then delivered to the Defendant such information as waste, fingers, buckbucks, etc. separately packed or stored in a medical disease.

4) If the Defendant’s murdering of the victim was itself aimed at, it is difficult to explain the reasons why the Defendant separated the death, handbucks, bucks, etc. from the above circumstances. However, if F was planning to provide part of the victim’s body to the YA, it is possible to separate the specific part of the body in an imminent situation and explain the reason for separate custody. This is likely to be separate from the Defendant’s interest. In addition, considering the series of circumstances from the date of the instant crime to the time when F delivers part of the body to the Defendant, the motive and purpose leading up to the instant crime is to provide the Defendant with a specific part of the body, i.e., waste and handbucks., by seeking a specific part of the victim.

D. Details and history of the reversal of F’s statement

1) The progress from the time of the first investigation to April 10, 2017 before the time of interrogation of the second suspect by the Prosecutor’s Office No. 2.

F showed a favorable attitude toward the Defendant at the beginning of the investigation, and expressed an attitude to protect the Defendant by denying the planning of the instant crime and the relationship between the Defendant and the instant case to the maximum extent possible. In other words, F, on April 4, 2017, stated that the Defendant did not obtain the consent of himself/herself as to the reason that the Defendant damaged the body or cut one finger at the time of the third interrogation of the Defendant on April 4, 2017, and that he/she reported his/her thought through a conversation with the profilinger, and concealed the fact that part of the body was delivered to the Defendant up to that time. Furthermore, if an investigative agency suspects the plannedness of the instant crime, or the link with the instant Defendant, it was said that the Defendant was in his/her multi-level, or that the Defendant was thought to be, or that he/she was in his/her her luxor, or that he/she actively defended the Defendant, and that he/she was aware of the following information to the effect that:

Defendant : The Defendant is flicked, but I will not be able to turged?F. Although he could not be turged, he will not be able to turged, but he will not be able to turged in depth. (Omission) A group of the Defendant described that it is a mental problem in the future. (Omission): The Defendant stated that he was flurged by his writing and was able to be flurged. F. M. M. T. T. T. T. on the police but he could not have a criminal record. (Omission)

On April 5, 2017, F came to know of the fact that the defendant was investigated at the time of interrogation of the fourth suspect by the police officer on April 5, 2017, F claimed that he/she was a L to memory the contents of the interview with his/her profilingr, and started to refer to the location of the fingerer for the first time, and later stated that W and L play a role in the course of the investigation.

On the other hand, the statement of F at the time of interrogation on April 5, 2017 and April 6, 2017 is as follows: F had maintained a favorable attitude against the defendant, and F had expressed a view to excluding the relation between the defendant and the defendant to the maximum extent possible. In other words, F had expressed a statement to the effect that, at the time of interrogation of the fourth suspect on April 5, 2017, "the conversation between the defendant and his descendant was fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright to fright.

In addition, at the time of the second examination by the prosecution of April 10, 2017, the defendant presented a position to avoid answers to the effect that "the defendant brought about the fingers and the abolition of the fake (pulmonary and fingers) about about 10 minutes from around 10:56 on the day of the case, or about 44 minutes from around 11:29 to around 14 minutes from around 14:19 to 14:52 on the day of the second examination of the defendant's currency, and to avoid answers to the effect that the defendant cannot be distorted or memoryd, and to eliminate the relation of this case to the maximum extent possible.

OF made a statement to the effect that at the 4th time of interrogation of the police, e.g., e., e., the defendant and SNS, e.g., a large number of Doese and Doese, and the defendant are good-friendly, but the defendant no longer thought her as friendly."

2) The Prosecutor’s Office Nos. 3 and 4 of April 13, 2017 and April 17, 2017

○ The F tried to escape from the friendly point of view of the existing accused from the 3th interrogation of the prosecution, and thereby, to alleviate the damage to the accused. However, the Defendant’s statement began to go against the previous answer details of the Defendant, i.e., “I think I will have to receive the value of the bar bar bar bar bar,” and the Defendant will go against the previous answer details of the Defendant. In the 4th interrogation of the prosecution, F is also written to the effect that if I want to look back to the contents of the statement of the Defendant, I would like to say that I would have been aware that I would have come to know that I would have come to know that I would have come to know when I would have come to the lower court.” F listen to or confirm the contents of the Defendant’s statement during the actual investigation.

○ The Defendant’s statement that he recognized the closure and fingers referred to as before and after the commission of the crime as a model at the time of interrogation, or that he recognized the conversation with F as a creative creation or a creative production is false; the Defendant divided the conversations between the Defendant, the character of the smuggling, the complete crime, etc.; the Defendant’s complaint before and after the instant lock, the Defendant expressed that his finger would be bad; the Defendant’s demand for murder was made; and the Defendant also recognized that there was some of the above dialogue during the investigation process.

Meanwhile, at the time of the above investigation, F consistently denied the conspiracys in order to emphasize the possibility of recognizing the Defendant’s criminal act and the conversations before and after the criminal act, which may be partially unfavorable to oneself, and that the criminal act was committed contingent.

3) Interrogation of the Defendant (Interrogation of the Defendant to the Prosecutor’s Office of April 19, 2017)

At the time of the mass investigation, F had recognized all the dialogues with the Defendant, such as ‘the match that can support the crime of this case as planned crime', ‘the situation is good', ‘the mobile phone has been lent', and ‘the mobile phone has been lent'. On the date of the mass investigation, F made a statement that is somewhat inconsistent with the Defendant's statement, and the Defendant reached the confession that the content of the plastic bag was perceived as the body, but in general, F did not seem to have a hostile or aggressive attitude toward the Defendant, and I made a statement on the specific parts after discussion. F became out of the Incheon Incheon Detention Center after the mass investigation.

4) Legal statement

A) The statement made by F on the first day of June 23, 2017 at F on the first day.

F appears as a witness on June 23, 2017) the first trial date of the instant case, and made a statement recognizing the involvement of the Defendant in the instant crime on a regular basis. In other words, the purport of F is that the Defendant discovered cruelness in F’s inner side, added it L, and led the Defendant to murder over several occasions, and convicted the Defendant. However, F made a statement to the same purport, but F made a statement to the effect that it was somewhat favorable to the Defendant or consistent with the Defendant’s statement, and that there was a specific instruction or plan to emphasize that it is a contingent crime.

In the end of the ○○○’s hearing of the patriarche at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant shall be asked to the lower school hours, and the Defendant was not aware of the search content (○○ Elementary School Schedule, etc.) immediately thereafter or later. The Defendant did not explain why he was asked or why he was asked, and the Defendant’s answer was not significantly negorious (16,47 pages of the witness examination record). Although the 3-6th day prior to the date of the instant crime, talks about the murder plan with the Defendant.

It was not a specific finite, but a finite finite finite finite finite finites (42-43 pages of the witness examination). ○○ (11:29 on March 29, 2017, to ask the Defendant about the monetary content of the Defendant 44 minutes from around 11:29 on March 29, 2017). A statement to the effect that, prior to March 29, 2017, he sent or sent SNS messages to the effect that he was finite finite finite finite finite, and that he was finite finite finite finite, and that he was finite finite finite finites

B) Examination of the witness by the defendant on July 12, 2017

On the other hand, after the testimony of F was made, the following SNS messages were disclosed to the public, where the Defendant and F were somewhat specially related to the examination of the Defendant in F (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da261, Jul. 12, 2017).

[2017. 3. 18.자 F과 'X' 과의 대화내용]F) 'R에게 뽀뽀 받아서 물음표 수십맘개뜸’, ‘입뽀뽀ㅇㅇ' '오옹’, ‘그리고입술 물어서 내가 화냄' (생략)F) ‘ㅋㅋㅋㅋ 저도 별 감흥 없어요, 다만 어두운 골목으로 데꾸가서 그럴줄은 멀라서쫌 당황스러울 뿐임'[2017. 3. 21.자 F과 'X' 과의 대화내용]F) 웃긴일이 생겻어요X) 무슨일인데요?F) 계약연애? 현실에서 말예요 (생략)F) 그동안 말햇던 그새럼이랑 계약연애 댐ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ

At the time of testimony, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that he denies the relationship with F while making a statement to this effect that he was flickly flickly or flickly, and F also made an answer to the effect that he was present in this court as a witness and denied or avoided a special appraisal of the Defendant in the presence of the Defendant. However, the SNS dialogue content immediately after the Defendant Manishs with the Defendant and the atmosphere are different from each other, and the atmosphere appears to be somewhat different and emotionally different, and the Defendant’s appraisal of F has changed to a certain degree after Slicks with the Defendant, and that F was a transition point of two people’s appraisal. Ultimately, in light of these circumstances and the SNS dialogue between the Defendant and F immediately after arrest, the Defendant and F appears to have developed as close relation before and after the signing of the contract (the contents of the SNS dialogue that were submitted as evidence after the trial date as evidence are as follows).

[2017. 3. 18.자 F과 'X' 과의 대화내용]앞서 본 내용의 대화를 X과 나누며,F) 참 요즘 다들 뻐뻐를 참 거리낌없이 해요 증말 나만 좋게 ㅎ (생략)F) R 얘가 나한테 계속 조아한다고 하네요(생략)F) 재밋네요.X) ??F) 썸같아서 재밋다고[2017. 3. 21.자 F과 'X' 과의 대화내용]앞서 본 내용의 대화를 X과 나누며,F) 야 우리 연애빼고 다한거 같아;가 시발점이었음 그리고 계약원수가 되어가는 중이에요X) 그렇군여ㅋㅋㅋF) 재밋어X) 재밌으시다니 좋은인생이군여

F) 인생의 낙이 생김 아니 웃김이 생김X) (뭐여)F) 솔직히 좀 웃기지 안아요? 현실 계약연애 (생략)X) ㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋㅋ뭐 잘 지내세요~(손흔들)F) 유쾌하게 지내구 잇답ㅂ니다,,

C) Statement at the fifth trial date of August 29, 2017 by F on August 29, 2017

F made a statement to the effect that the type of involvement of the defendant was close to the teacher on the preceding trial date, and further made a statement to the effect that there was a prior public contest or consultation between the defendant and the defendant on the subject of the instant crime, the method and place of the crime, the method and place of the abandonment of the body, and the place of the body of the defendant, etc. on the trial date. The F responded to the prosecutor’s question as to whether contingent crimes and the assertion of mental and physical disability may be disadvantageous to the defendant, but the testimony may be disadvantageous to him. On the other hand, the F thought that it was the best to protect the defendant, but it was thought that the idea of the defendant was changed, but it was thought that he should be responsible for the crime if the statement was closed in a correct way."

E. Type and history of reversal of the defendant's statement

The form and reversal of the defendant's statement shall be as follows:

1) Type of statement by the defendant

The Defendant is generally presumed to have any objective evidence (e.g., K, Rirex message, cell phone search details, etc.) or may be inferred to have any objective evidence, and the Defendant voluntarily states or voluntarily states any unfavorable circumstance that is anticipated to be discovered (e.g., K, Rirex message, cell phone search details, etc.) or, (ii) states any fact known to the Defendant only when the investigation agency conducts an interrogation on the basis of objective evidence or F’s statement, or (iii) does not completely deny if a new statement is made by F (e.g., when a statement was made in a confrontation or face-to-face with F).

○ Conversations on waste and fingers

At the time of the second witness investigation conducted on April 4, 2017, the Defendant stated that “I would bring about a person’s long-term from F before the date of the incident,” and that “I think F would have f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to f to her first refer to the part of the victim’s long-term.” However, the Defendant already stated that the Defendant had no long-term period at the time of the investigation by the relevant witness (the second witness examination conducted on April 1

○ Conversations related to the search details of F, such as slaughter

At the time of investigation by the second witness of the police on April 4, 2017, the Defendant stated that “F, while making a flicking flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flicker’s flick, the Defendant made a statement that the Defendant flicked the flicker’s fl.

As a result of the analysis of evidence of the F's cell phone which was actually seized, from around 01:00 to about 44 minutes before the date of the case, the following was searched from around 02:20 to about 34 minutes after the completion of the Defendant's telephone call, and the search of the word "domination" around 07:35 on the same day.

○ Conversation on human land

On April 5, 2017, F made a statement to the effect that, at the time of the fourth interrogation of the police in April 5, 2017 and the third interrogation of the prosecution on April 13, 2017, “the Defendant made a statement from the date of the instant case to the effect that “the Defendant was sprinking down and sprinkbbbbbs for all times, and that the Defendant was sprinking down and sprinking for all times, and that the Defendant was sprinking down and sprinkbbs.” Accordingly, at the time of the fifth interrogation of the Defendant on April 16, 2017, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was spucking prior to closure and spucking,” and that the Defendant made a statement to the effect that the Defendant was spucking on the day of the instant film and spucking.”

○ Conversation on the lower school hours of elementary school

At the time of the third witness examination conducted on April 5, 2017, the defendant asked about the F's cell phone evidence analysis results of the F's cell phone search results, and he thought that the suspect (F) searched about the contents of the elementary school lower school hours. (Omission) the suspect asked about several times to determine whether the elementary school was closed, and stated that "I will make a statement to the effect that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see if I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see before the F.I would like to see.

○ Communications, such as ‘brupted, living?’, etc.

At the time of the second witness investigation conducted on April 4, 2017 by the police, the Defendant presented a letter to the effect that, at around 13:37 on the day of the F’s instant case, the Defendant: (a) stated that, “I am well-known,” “I am well-known that I am well-known, or that I am well-known, and that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I am well-known.” (b) I would like to think that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I am even if I am well-known, I would like to think that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would like to say that I will am well-known before I am.”

○ Conversations on fingers after inducing the victim;

한편 피고인은 F이 피해자를 유인한 후 있었던 피해자의 손가락이 예쁘다는 취지의 대화에 대하여도, 2017. 4. 14.자 경찰 제3회 피의자신문 당시, 수사기관에서 '피고인과 피해자의 손가락이 예쁘다는 취지의 대화를 나눴다'라는 취지의 F의 진술을 기초로 추궁하자, "기억이 나지 않고, 제 생각에 환상으로 하는 이야기라고 생각했다면 제가 그런 말을 했다고 하더라도 이상하게 생각되지는 않는다"거나 "그런 대화를 나눈 사실이 없다"라고도 진술하였다가, 2017. 4. 16.자 경찰 제5회 피의자신문 및 F과의 2017. 4. 19.자 검찰 대질조사 당시에는 위와 같은 대화를 나눈 사실을 인정하였다.

○ Contents of the currency with F immediately after the death of the victim

At the time of the second witness investigation by the police officer of April 4, 2017, the defendant denied the content that "F considered and did not know that the contents were about the car or the beginning." However, the police officer who investigated the defendant confirmed the contents of F's statement during the investigation by another police station at the time of the investigation by the defendant, and made a statement that F was f was f to the defendant, and that F was f to flick and flick at the time of the formation of a paper plastic bag, and that F was flick and flick (However, F stated that the defendant was aware that it was flick and flick, and that F was flick and flick, and that F was flick and flick on the day of the incident.

O Contents of dialogue after the completion of a paper bag from F

F은 2017. 4. 17.자 검찰 제4회 피의자신문 당시, "피고인과 술을 마시던 중 피고인이 종이봉투 내용을 확인하기 위해 잠시 자리를 비웠다가 돌아와 F에게 '확인했어'라고 말했고, 이에 F이 '손가락 예쁘지?'라고 하자 피고인이 '예쁘더라'라고 답변했다 "고 진술하였다. 한편 피고인은 2017. 4. 18.자 경찰 제7회 피의자신문 이전까지는 F과 헤어질 때까지 종이봉투의 내용물을 확인한 사실을 부인하여 왔다. 그러던 중 위 경찰조사 당시 앞서 본 F의 진술을 기초로 F과의 대화내용을 확인하자, 피고인은 "당시 F이 기운이 없어 보여 F을 신나게 해주기 위해 '손가락 예쁘더라'라고 얘기를 해주었고, 이에 F이 '확인했어?'라고 묻기에 '응 아까 확인했어'라고 말을 한 것이고 실제 확인하지는 않았다"라는 취지로 진술하였다가, 2017. 4. 19. F과의 검찰 대질조사에 이르러서는, '술을 마신 이후 술집 화장실에서 내용물을 확인하여 실제 사람의 장기라는 사실을 알게 되었고, 확인 후 위와 같은 내용의 대화를 나눴다'는 취지로 진술하며 사체 인식 사실을 시인하였다.

○ Rabex message immediately after the arrest of F

Meanwhile, in reference to reference materials in the form of a statement submitted by the Defendant immediately after the arrest of the Defendant, the Defendant directly prepared and submitted the RDex message divided with F and F immediately after the arrest of F. Following F’s arrest, the message could have been obtained from the investigative agency to delete the mobile phone application rather than the conversation, and it appears that the Defendant was not present at the time of submitting the statement. However, according to the above content, although the F’s answer is accurately written (e.g., ‘b', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I',' ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I',' and ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I', ‘I't know that the Defendant asked F to delete the message.

F: L. F: How the accused is less than broned: how it should be judged. The innocence is unreasonable. The accused: .... The accused is fly fluored, but it is not necessary to be able to be tangled?F. Although it is fluored, it should not be fluored, but it should not be fluored in depth: (Omission) the accused, where it is present? Safety?

F: P.F. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. W. B.W. B.W. W. L.W. W. L.W. W. L.W. W. L. L.W. L.W.: W. W. L.W. L.W.: W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. : B.W.W. L. L.W. : B.W. L.W. L.W. L.W. : B.W. L.W.W.

(ii) the consistency of statements;

In addition, as seen below, the Defendant is not consistent with the Defendant’s statement to the effect that ① with respect to the contents of dialogue with F, the Defendant’s statement to the effect that: (a) with respect to the contents of the conversation with F, the creation of a sagic or board (or the character’s role), F’s net or exchange, or the Defendant’s statement to the effect that he formally responded to the victim’s dialogue; and (b) the victim’

○ Contents of dialogue on the long term prior to the instant crime

On April 4, 2017, the Defendant made a statement that 'F will bring about her long term' as seen earlier at the time of the second witness investigation. However, on April 5, 2017, the Defendant stated that 'I would like to bring about the death and finger of the deceased in the 3rd witness investigation,' and that 'I would like to bring about the death and finger of the deceased in the 3rd witness investigation,' and that 'I would like to think 'I would like to bring about the death and finger of the deceased in the 3rd witness examination,' and that I would like to think 'I would like to think 'I would like to think 'I would like to bring about the death and finger of the deceased in the 3rd witness examination,' and that I would like to think 'I would like to think 'I would like to think 'I would like to think that I would like to 'I would like to see that I would like to 'I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to 'I would like to see it.I would like to '.

O Contents of currency at 11:29:

At the time of investigation by the third witness of the police of April 5, 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that, from around 11:29 to around 44 minutes, the currency content from around 11:29, which was conducted prior to F’s inducement and murder, was not a creative creation or a role gap, not a creative production or a role gap, and that the F’s emotional clothes, depression, and pacific symptoms do not go beyond the elementary school curriculum. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant stated to the effect that, without entirely mentioning the relationship between the investigation process to this court, the Defendant was asked by his mother as he was an elementary school’s son.

O CCTV-related dialogues

On April 10, 2017, with respect to the fact that the Defendant divided the conversation between F and CCTV confirmation, the Defendant stated that “CCTV would have been asked to see how the F and CCTV would have been fluored in order to take the luorial materials in the middle of the conversation with F and the conversation.” However, on April 14, 2017, the Defendant reversed the statement to the effect that “I am asked the CCTV at a low time to see the situation as a tool at the time of interrogation after the third interrogation of the police on April 14, 2017.”

○ Conversations on fingers after inducing the victim;

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not answer to the conversation that F had been inducedd by the victim that the fingers of the victim would be bad, and if the prosecutor was divided the same conversation at the time of the large-scale investigation, then the Defendant did not answer to the question whether F had been minded with the victim, as it was “(the head, aground, and aground).”

○ Currency to the effect that a person is dead.

As seen earlier, during the second witness investigation conducted on April 4, 2017 by the police, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “F’s statement (the purport that she saw the Defendant to murder) was f, and that F was satisfed, and was satisfed, and was satisfed by satisf due to no belief in the front of the 13th century on the day of the incident.” However, during the third witness investigation conducted on April 5, 2017 by the police, the Defendant stated that “F was satisfed by satisfat at the time,” and that “F was satched by satching with F’s exchange satisf at the time, because it was known that she became satisf and satisf at the time,” and that it was satisfed by satisf at the time of the incident.”

On the other hand, at the time of the 4th witness investigation by the police of April 5, 2017, the Defendant asked questions as to why “I am dead” on the basis of F’s statement, “I am dynaW dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna dyna on the day of the arrest. However, on April 10, 2017, it was found that there was a timely dialogue of the above contents on the day of the interrogation of the suspect as well as the reference materials submitted immediately after the interrogation of the suspect. In other words, the Defendant avoided the interrogation of the suspect at the third time of April 26, 2017.

O The circumstances after the arrival of F

At the time of the second witness investigation conducted on April 4, 2017, the Defendant made a statement that “F was “I Don,” “I Don Don Don Don L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L L

피고인은 2017. 4. 5.자 경찰 제3회 참고인 조사 당시, "제가 F에게 차, 과자, 초콜릿 같은 것들을 줬기 때문에 이번에는 F이 저에게 차나 초콜릿을 준 것이라고 생각했다. 봉투를 받아 버릴 때까지 폐와 손가락이 들었다고 생각하지 않았다. 귀가 도중 집 근처 지하철역 화장실에 들러 봉투 안을 살짝 봤다가 찝찝한 마음에 집 근처 쓰레기장에 버렸다"고 진술하여, 봉투 내용물을 확인했는지 여부 및 장기 인식 여부에 대한 이전 진술을 번복하였다.

In the second interrogation of suspect on April 11, 2017, the Defendant reversed the existing statement on whether or not the content was confirmed again and how to deal with it, and explained the contents as model somewhat far.

◇ F이 얘기했던 것과 당시 상황을 생각해보면 (종이가방의 내용물이) 손가락과 폐라고 생각은 했지만 실제 누군가를 죽였을 것이라고는 생각하지 않았다. F이 사람을 죽인다는 말은했지만 피고인을 해치거나 한 적은 없고, 체격이 작아서 누구를 해치지도 못할 것이라고 생각했고, 평소 아프다고 하고 밥도 조금밖에 먹지 않아 힘이 없어 누군가를 죽인다는 생각은못했기 때문에 봉투 안에 모형이 들었을 것이라고 생각했다. 그리고 종이가방이 폐나 장기를 넣었다고 생각하기에는 너무 무게가 가벼웠고, 종이봉투에 피가 배어나온다거나 그런 것도 전혀 없었고 피 냄새 같은 것도 나지 않았고, 마지막으로 F의 아빠가 의사라고 했고 의학계통에 인맥이 많은 것으로 이야기해왔기 때문에 어딘가에서 모형을 구해 와서 전해준것이라고 생각했다.◇ F과 헤어진 후 집 근처 지하철역 화장실에서 종이가방을 피고인의 가방 안에 넣어 집으로 가져왔다.◇ 집으로 돌아와 밤부터 새벽까지 ‘인천 살인사건' 등에 관한 기사를 읽어보고 F과 R다이렉트 메시지를 주고받은 후 잠이 들었고, 아침에 일어나 종이가방의 내용물을 확인했다. 모형인 줄 알았는데 손가락이 있었고, 폐도 있었고, 고깃덩어리 같은 것이 있었다. 그런데 그것을 진짜라고 생각하지 못한 것이, 핏기가 없고 모양도 너무 말끔하고 표본 모형 같이 생겨서 그냥 안심을 했던 것 같다. 물약병 안에 들어 있던 손가락은 정말 모형인 것처럼말끔하게 보이고 피도 별로 안 나서 모형인 것으로 생각했다.5)◇ 모형이라고 생각했지만 부모님께 걸리면 혼이 날 것 같았고, 그냥 버리면 아무리 모형이라도 환경미화원이나 다른 사람들이 충격을 받거나 놀랄 것 같아서 이를 조그맣게 잘라 비닐봉지 안에 넣어 음식물 쓰레기와 함께 버렸다.

On April 14, 2017, the defendant stated that "the third interrogation of a suspect who was the police officer's third interrogation of a paper envelope was the previous model at the time of 'F', but there has been confusion which had been received in any circumstances at the present time," but the defendant stated that "the following day of 'the day of 'the day after 'the day after 'the day after 'the day after 'the day after 'the day when 'the day after 'the day after 'the day after ' was considered as a model' and maintained the existing statement that he recognized it as a model at the time when

On April 15, 2017, the defendant issued a statement to the effect that, in the fourth interrogation of the police officer, he again thought that he would have given the F's death and fingers after he met the F, and that, in addition to re-afusing the statement, the statement was somewhat changed until the 7th interrogation of the police officer on April 18, 2017, but there was no direct confirmation of the content that he thought it as the model." (On the other hand, at the time of the fourth interrogation of the police officer, the defendant sent a message to the police station that he would have taken the search such as "the discovery of the body of Yeonsu-gu" and "the discovery of the body of Yeonsu-gu" by the following day of the case, even though the criminal was confirmed as F, it was somewhat difficult to understand that he was a long-term model that he had received from F.

While maintaining the existing position that the Defendant considered F as a model of the public prosecutor's cross-examination team and F's fingers that he thought from F on April 19, 2017, the Defendant stated that "after drinking alcohol at the bar outside the entrance, it was confirmed that the Defendant was involved in the disposal, fingers, and sprinking of the body in the paper room at the end of the public prosecutor's investigation, the Defendant stated that "I would like to confirm that the Defendant was the actual body of the body in the paper room after drinking alcohol at the bar outside the entrance, and then I would like to recognize the body of the body of the F." (However, the Defendant divided the above dialogue because I would cause harm to F.).

However, on April 24, 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the body was confirmed only after he or she was unable to be aware of the content of an envelope because he or she was merely sufficient to confirm the content in a drinking toilet,” which was conducted on April 24, 2017 after having left the Incheon detention center for mental sentiment, and that “the Defendant stated that he or she was the body after he or she returned to the Republic of Korea,” and that the prosecutor stated that he or she was not likely to mention the reversal of the existing statement and affect the conspiracy of murder, and that he or she would maintain the part recognized at the time of the presidential investigation after changing the time to organize the idea, and that he or she again re-reconvened the statement at the time of the o’s investigation.” At the fourth time of the prosecution on April 28, 2017, the Defendant appears to have been examined as a witness, and that he or she again stated that he or she would not have been confused with the envelope at the time of an investigation.”

(iii) the clarity of the statement;

The Defendant shows an attitude to avoid the clear statement to the effect that the Defendant does not “contribute,” or “contribute,” on the facts constituting the core of the instant case and related cases, including the conversation between F and F on the day of the instant crime, and the conversation between F and F on the day of the instant crime.

○ Police Statements by the Defendant

피고인은 2017. 4. 17.자 경찰 제6회 피의자신문 시, 그때까지 밝혀진 일련의 정황들, 즉 사진을 전송받기 전후로 "사냥을 나간다, 사람을 죽일 때 흰 옷을 입는다"는 내용의 K 대화, F이 11:29경 44분간 통화를 할 당시 초등학교 하교 시간을 물어본 점, 이후 "여자애를 잡아왔다, 목에 줄을 감아놨다, 상황이 좋았다"등의 K 대화 등에 비추어 보면, F이 초등학생을 잡으러 나간다고 한 것이 아니냐는 수사기관의 질문에도 "그것은 잘 모르겠어요"라고 답변하였다.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Defendant exchanged frequently with F in the course of committing the crime of F on the day of the instant case as well as the day before the instant case. In particular, F was in very imminent situation at the time of the commission and abandonment of the site immediately after murder, but the Defendant and approximately three times exchangeds with the Defendant. However, the Defendant stated that, with respect to the specific monetary content of F, around 14:19 and around 14:52 during the process of organizing the site, the Defendant had expressed that he thought that he did not memory, unfold, or unfold, during the investigation agency’s multiple times, and that he avoided specific answers.

○ Statement by the Defendant to the prosecution after an investigation into the substitution.

On April 24, 2017, the Defendant denied the second examination of the suspect, as seen earlier, the recognition of the body recognized at the time of the large quality investigation, which was conducted on April 24, 2017, and re-exploited. Accordingly, the Defendant did not present a statement to the Defendant that he was unable to help the Defendant to answer his defense counsel on the grounds that the prosecutor did not properly present his testimony on the following grounds: F and the first day of the examination, namely, the series of circumstances up to F until the date of the examination; F and the first day of the case; F, the conversation between him and F and the day of the case; .. . . . . . . . . . .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. ... .... .... ..... ..... the Defendant sent his answer to the Defendant for further investigation.

○ Defendant’s legal statement

The defendant appeared as a witness in the related case and collected the fingers to F before the crime of this case. The defendant made a statement to the effect that "I will not see any question about whether I will see whether I will see the Fbucks in food," "I will see that I will not see that I will see that I will see that I will see how I will do so, "I will see how I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see that I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see, I will see that I will see that I will see. I will see. I will see........

(iv) refusal to conduct an overall investigation with F;

As seen earlier, F took the attitude of protecting the Defendant from the time of the investigation into the Defendant, following the investigation into the Defendant: F made a statement of F at the time of the investigation into the Defendant at the time of the investigation into the Defendant (such as the Defendant’s right to death and fingers, or her fly fly fly fly, after having taken her fingers, etc.) and the Defendant’s search details after the day of the instant investigation (such as the discovery of the body of Yeonsu-gu), and the call between the Defendant and F on the day of the instant investigation into the Defendant. Of that, the Defendant, at the time of the 7th investigation into the police of April 18, 2017, referred to the f’s face at the time of the interrogation into the Defendant, it is difficult for the Defendant to report the F’s face, and it was difficult for the Defendant to respond to the question of the investigative agency(F) at the time of considering the face of the investigation agency’s reasons. Moreover, I did not think that he did not have any burden.

5) The reversal of the statement after the examination of substitute evidence

As seen earlier, the Defendant confirmed the part of the body of the victim F, and recognized that it was a real body part of the body, at the time of the physical examination with F. However, F, on April 24, 2017, which took place after leaving the Incheon detention center for mental appraisal, denied it again at the time of the second interrogation by the Prosecutor’s Office No. 2, which was conducted after the F left the Incheon detention center for mental assessment, and reconvened it at the time of the investigation and re

(f) The actual operational form of character community;

On the other hand, the defendant and F became an opportunity to become aware of, and the actual operational form of the character claimed by the defendant as the character's role gap is as follows.

(생략)[T(피고인)](당신의 그 태도는 항상 남자를 만족시키곤 했다. 녀석은 얼굴 바싹 가까이 해 당신의 눈을한참동안 바라보다, 가느다랗게 웃으며 손을 거두고 몸을 물렀다.)그럼. 나는 널 믿지. 항상 그랬듯이.(유쾌한 웃음소리. 숨통이 끊어진 Z의 가슴팍을 힐로 짓밟으며 녀석이 당신 쪽으로 고개를돌렸다.)머리를 한 방에 뚫었던데, 너. 원래 취미가 이런 쪽이야?(하는, 가벼운 질문들)[U(F)]

(당신이 더욱 가까이 다가오자 당신을 바라보는 눈동자가 떨린다. 내가 뭘 잘못했지? 무의미한 자책만이 쌓여가던 도중 당신이 물러나자 잠시 멍하니 있는다. 용서받은 건가? 뭘? 아니면?)...감사합니다. 취미는 아닙니다만, 그러는 쪽이 편하니까요.(당신의 발아래에 나뒹구는시체를 힐긋 바라본다. Z라고 불렸던가. 어차피 곧 기억에서 사라질 테지만. 잠시 망설이다가 묻는다.) 이번 제 성과는 마음에 드시나요?[T(피고인)]응, 아주 마음에 들어. 총성 말고는 시끄러운 소리가 그닥 나지 않아서 가장. 고통스러이 죽이지 않아 아쉽지만, 질질 끌었다간 더욱 소란스러워졌을 거야.(...이 정도면 심장이나 폐를적출하는데에는 어렵지 않겠어. 중얼인다. 그러곤 손을 뻗어 당신의 머리칼을 헝클어뜨리듯쓰다듬었다.) 수고했어, U. 상으로 머리라도 땋아줄까?(라며 장난스레 미소 지었다.)(생략)

G. Determination

1) The credibility of F’s statement

The F's statement has been gradually embodied from the investigative agency to this court after the lapse of time, and the degree of involvement of the defendant following the statement has increased rapidly, and it may be doubtful whether F makes a false statement with the intent to transfer its responsibility to the defendant.

The F’s statement appears to have a certain objective in that it emphasizes the contingentness and mental problems of the initial crime in the investigation, and conceals the involvement of the Defendant. Among them, as F gradually listens to the contents of the Defendant’s statement in the investigation process or confirms the contents of the Defendant’s statement in person, it may be sufficiently doubtful that there was a prior assistant principal for the instant crime at the same time after the examination of the Defendant’s statement 3 and 4 times. Accordingly, the statement first commences with the statement of conversation between the Defendant and F, which may be shakingd against the Defendant’s prior principal for the instant crime, and thereby led to the statement of the Defendant’s specific conspiracy in the instant court.

Since F tried to deny the planning of his criminal responsibility or crime on the ground of the initial mental problem, it repeats only a vague statement to the effect that it is not well memory or that all of the circumstances have become elblue. Since objective evidence such as the result of the analysis of evidence against mobile phones and the investigation into the accused are accompanied by the evidence collected and new circumstances are revealed, the F’s statement is also embodied in the statement of his criminal facts after the lapse of time.

In the process of the investigation, the Defendant’s statement is partially visible, or the facts themselves are recognized, but the form of statement to the effect that he/she was aware of his/her role. Although it may reverse the Defendant’s statement even though he/she made a statement recognizing his/her factual relations, it is clear that the Defendant’s statement as to the facts of this case is also embodied or clear when he/she made the Defendant’s statement based on the F’s statement.

The changed statement of F contains any content that can be disadvantageous to F himself/herself. In other words, under the circumstance that F still maintains the argument of mental disorder and contingent crime in the relevant case, it would be sufficient to recognize that the form of participation of the defendant is either in any form, and there was a prior discussion on the instant crime. F consistently denies the planning of the instant crime from investigative agencies to this court, and emphasizes that the instant crime was committed in a situation beyond the control of himself/herself.

Nevertheless, the F recognized that there was a prior plan in this court about the possibility of fear of committing a crime, method, CCTV, and other crimes. While F maintains the aforementioned contingency crime and mental and physical disability-related arguments in related cases, it can serve as a witness in the instant case, which is closely related to the case, and the recognition of the prior discussion or plan with the accomplice can serve as a foundation for the formation of a flexible conviction, and even though it may act as a decision-making disadvantage to himself, F maintained the statement to the same purport (F refers to the prosecutor's question as to whether it will maintain the testimony to the above purport even if it may be weak or difficult for him/her to accept the claim for contingent crime and mental and physical disability-related treatment). Meanwhile, F sent questions about the meaning of the message sent by the Defendant and the message distributed immediately after the arrest to F to induce him/her to link with the case, it is difficult for the public prosecutor to unilaterally consider the defendant's opinion that it is disadvantageous to him/her.

○ 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인과 F은 이 사건 범행에 대한 사전교감이 있었다는 점을 감춰야 한다는 점에서는 그 이해관계가 일치한다. 그럼에도 F은 수사 및 재판과정에서 줄곧 주장했던 자신의 기존 입장과 정면으로 배치되는 듯한 진술을 하기에 이르렀바, 이는 앞서 본 이 사건 범행 동기와 목적을 비롯하여 결국 피고인과 F의 관계와 밀접한 연관이 있는 것으로 보인다. 즉, 이 사건 범행의 동기와 목적은 앞서 본 바와 같이 F이 사체의 일부(폐, 손가락 등)를 구하여 피고인에게 제공하기 위한 것으로, 피고인의 주요 관심사인 폐와 손가락은 피고인의 캐릭터와 관련이 있었고, 이 사건 범행 이전 피고인과 F 사이에 폐와 손가락을 가져다 달라는 내용의 대화도 있었다. F은 직접 신체의 일부를 제공하기 위해 이 사건 살인 및 사체손괴 실행행위에 나설 만큼 피고인과 각별한 유대관계가 있었던 것으로 보이고, 그래서 더욱 수사 초반 피고인의 존재를 감추려고 했던 것으로 보인다. 앞서와 같은 F이 체포 직후 피고인과 나눴던 SNS 메시지나, 수사 초반 F의 진술태도에 의하면, F은 피고인의 존재를 적극적으로 감추거나 피고인과 관련된 사항을 진술할 경우 피고인의 입장을 해명하려고 하는 등 피고인과 이 사건과의 연관성을 최대한 배제하려는 입장을 보였다.

On the other hand, in the case of the defendant, the question of the investigative agency questioning the situation at the time was presented to the effect that the question of the F is whether the F is a matter of action or mental problem, the F makes a statement that may be unfavorable to the F, and that the F is responsible for the F. The F makes a statement to the effect that, at the time of the 3 and 4th examination by the prosecution, the question of the defendant was stated as follows: "At the time of the 3 and 4th examination by the public prosecutor, the defendant is a set of 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' or 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' before the crime of this case, and that it is possible to reverse the overall 's 's 's 's 's ' and '.' ' ' '.'.

2) The credibility of the Defendant’s statement

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s statement is without consistency or unclear as to the facts constituting the core of the instant and related cases, including the contents of the currency with F on the day before the instant crime was committed and the day of the crime, and the conversation from F on the same day to the day after he saw a part of the body of the victim’s body from F. As seen below, it is difficult to obtain the change or speech formally as follows.

A) The defendant's defense counsel's non-conformity

Around 13:37, the Defendant made a statement to F that “I think F would be satisfyed even if I did not believe that I would be satisfy,” which was made at the time of approximately seven minutes following the receipt of F’s message, “I think I would like to be satisfyed.” This seems to be clearly different meaning. In other words, "I think I would like to think I would like to be satisfy?" even though I would like to recognize the possibility of truth, it would be 'I would like to satisfy' or satisfy? In other words, I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I think I would like to see I would like to satfy due to F’s exchange and satisfy, and that I would not easily think I would like to think I would like to think I would like to 'I would like to think I would like to 'I would like to think I would like to think I would like to think I would like.'.

○ At the time of the prosecutor’s general investigation with F, the Defendant: (a) confirmed the content of the paper bags that F and F were dried from F to the effect that it was part of the body of the victim; and (b) recognized the fact of the crime of abandonment of the body up to this Court. However, the Defendant did not take any particular measure despite having known that the content was a part of the body; and (c) did not take any specific measure until F were contacted and returned back to F; (d) the Defendant confirmed the victim’s body and stated to the effect that F would inflict any injury on F; (e) the Defendant was transferred to F and C Stick-type studio; (e) the Defendant had been aware of the fact that it was difficult for F to take any subsequent measures, such as the Defendant’s temporary closure of the body, and (e) had to take any part of the Defendant’s body known to F to F to the effect that it was difficult for F to take any part of the Defendant’s body.

Furthermore, the Defendant divided the dialogue between F and F before committing the instant crime, and on the same day, sent a variable photograph along with the message from F to the day he gets her fingers, etc. from F before the victim’s fingers, etc., or she was killed by one of F and elementary school students ? CCTV was confirmed? The CCTV was confirmed, 'I am', 'I am women', 'I am her, and her fingers'. Further, the Defendant confirmed the fact that F brought about part of the actual body from F, 'I am her body' by the end of 'I am her and her fingers'. Further, if the Defendant confirmed the fact that F brought about part of the victim’s body in the previous situation, i.e., a crime to obtain the victim’s fingers (such as murders) from F and it appears that it was possible for the Defendant to continue to make a statement from F to the scene of the instant crime, or even after the occurrence of a crime to obtain the body from F to the scene.

In fact, from the day to the day when F was able to take the victim's fingers, etc. from F along with the message that "I will take a scam from F to the day when I got the victim's fingers, etc., one of F and elementary school students is dead, and CCTV was confirmed? In addition, if the defendant confirmed the fact that F had actually brought about a part of the victim's body from F by the end of "F by taking the victim's body's body from F and being scamed," it seems that the defendant tried to get the victim's body from the scene on the day of the case, or attempted to get the body from F and elementary school students on the day of the case, and that the defendant tried to do so and tried to have the victim's body from F and attempted to do so, it seems that it seems that the defendant continued to have been aware of the fact in the process of the investigation by F and the defendant, etc., and that it was possible to do so in the process of the investigation (such as the defendant's oral statement).

○ 한편 앞서 본 바와 같이, 피고인은 일부 K으로 나눈 것으로 추정되거나 F의 진술로 드러난 대화내용 외에는, 사건 당일 F과의 대화내용에 대해 대체로 소극적인 진술태도를 보이고 있고, 특히 사건 당일 저녁 F과 만나 헤어질 때까지 나눴던 대부분의 대화내용에 대하여는 구체적인 답변을 회피하고 있다. 그런데 피고인의 주장처럼 피고인이 사체 일부를 건네받기 이전 상황에 전혀 관여한 바가 없다면, F과 만나 그 경위에 관한 대화를 나누는 것이 자연스러워 보이는바, 피고인의 입장에서는 오히려 이와 같은 사정을 적극적으로 해명하는 것이 유리할 것임에도 피고인은 이 부분에 대한 설명을 제대로 하지 못하고 있다.

B) Circumstances that refuse to conduct a survey on the quality of goods

In general, it is anticipated that the Defendant would assert and actively express his/her judgment in cases where he/she is suspected of committing a serious crime under suspicion as another person's non-conscept or another person's unilateral act. Furthermore, even though the Defendant asserted that he/she was unable to be aware of the F's series of crimes, he/she was arrested on April 10, 2017, and had denied the abandonment of the body until the time of refusal of such investigation. After the arrest, the Defendant tried to actively explain his/her position while submitting reference materials similar to approximately 30 pages of a statement prepared directly at the time of the police investigation as of April 11, 2017, which was issued after the arrest. However, the Defendant continued the police investigation, and the F's position that the Defendant who provided the Defendant with the Defendant began to go against the interest of F, and thus, tried to point out his/her false testimony through the investigation with F and to reverse the victim's statement form or self-consception of the case, it appears that he/she did not go against the victim's opinion.

C) The circumstances after the survey of the substitute nature

As seen earlier, the Defendant acknowledged the fact that the body was partially confirmed at the time of the physical examination, and then reversed the Defendant’s statement to the effect that the contents of the paper bags were confirmed at the fourth suspect interrogation time of April 28, 2017, and at the bar for drinking houses, but whether the body was a body or not, and that it was highly likely to be fake.” However, at the time of the investigation, the Defendant responded to the prosecutor’s question to the effect that “at the time of the investigation, the Defendant made an investigation into the murder aiding and abetting part after confession and reversed the statement.” This is nothing more than that of the Defendant who made a different statement with a single fact basis and made a different statement. In other words, the recognition of the body of the Defendant at the time is the matters that the Defendant himself knows well, and this does not change according to the ex post facto situation. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not deny it at the time of the physical examination with F, but did not deny it, but it seems that it had an effect on the Defendant’s participation in the act of homicide beyond the judgment or the possibility.

D) The actual performance of the character’s role.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that considerable part of the conversation content with F is part of the character function gap. On the day of the instant case, the conversation content divided by the Defendant and F is different from the existing character function gap between the Defendant and F.

H. Conclusion

Ultimately, in light of the aforementioned series of circumstances, the F and the circumstances leading up to reversal, etc., the F’s statement is reliable, and the facts leading up to the conspiracy of the instant crime between the Defendant and F and the Defendant’s inherent contribution to the instant crime can be acknowledged. The assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel is without merit.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of legal applicable sentences: Life imprisonment;

2. Sentencing is a juvenile and does not apply to the defendant.

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for life;

The instant case revealed that female juveniles enticed an unspecified child, murdered, and caused harm to the dead body, and led to shock and attack in society as a whole. The instant crime committed by the Defendant and F, with love in her family members, and the victim, who met a new semester, frighted in her life without giving birth to her life. The victim cannot be seen again, and the victim’s mind that she cannot be seen again, and the victim’s mind that she did not keep the victim, and that it is difficult for her bereaved family members who were suffering from serious harm to her life or injury. Even after her life and injury, it seems that the bereaved family members were able to satisfy and sat down their lives and satch, and even after her death, the victim’s life and body cannot be recovered from the Defendant’s death, and the victim’s body and body cannot be recovered from the Defendant’s death, and the victim’s body and body cannot be recovered from the Defendant’s death in an absolute manner.

Meanwhile, considering the suffering and suffering of the victims and their bereaved family members, the severity of responsibility of the F and the Defendant’s direct murdering of the victims does not necessarily lead to the seriousness of the victim’s responsibilities. Even if the Defendant was a juvenile under the age of 19 years from the time of committing the crime, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant had reached the crime of this case on the ground that he was well aware of the juvenile’s age at the time of committing the crime, and that the Defendant had reached the crime of this case on the ground that he was aware of the juvenile’s personality, the Defendant’s attitude is reasonable and that the details and consequence of the crime of this case are harsh. The instant crime is a simple escape or cruel and cruel crime that is likely to be seen as frequently committed by the Defendant for lack of experience. As to such planned and cruel crimes, taking into account the importance of his anti-social result into account, it does not correspond to the criminal liability, and even if the Defendant committed the crime of this case on the ground that he was committed under the age of the victim, the circumstances and circumstances of the Defendant’s punishment and punishment are not balanced.

Judge Doing the presiding judge;

Judges Maximum Beneficiaries

Judges Park Jong-ro

1) To the extent that it does not impede the Defendant’s exercise of the right to defense, part of the facts charged was revised.

2) From around 02:20 to around 01:44, F searched ‘the homicide of an apartment in Namyang-ju', ‘the murder of an apartment in Namyang-ju', ‘the murder of a dead body without a dead body', ‘domination', etc. (Investigation Records 1179-1182 pages).

3) In the instant case, the prosecutor’s request for a probation order constitutes a preliminary claim prepared for dismissal of the request for the attachment order, and thus, the prosecutor’s request for the attachment order cannot be determined separately.

4) [Contents of dialogue with F on March 16, 2017]

(F) are too bullying6 ody so that any R previously speaked is required to be bullying;

X) 이름 붙여줫다는 그분이요?(생략)

FF) 으 어 아으어 걍 연 끊을가요(생략)

F) H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. H. must be expressed friendly impression

F) At least a safe person who is not a person, so long as it is unfurged.

F) The Yorem Yor Morem Porem Yorem Porem Yor Morem.

5) For this reason, F stated that, as seen earlier, F was unable to put the bones into a knife between sections because it was impossible to put the knife, and that it was removed.

A person shall be appointed.