2014No89 Injury (the name of a recognized crime: Injury, assault)

1. A;

2. B

Defendants and Prosecutor (Objection to all of the Defendants)

Preliminary(s)(s) , reciting(s) and book purification(s)

Law Firm C (For all the defendants)

Attorney in charge D, F, AG, E, G, H

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gohap490 Decided December 20, 2013

June 13, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) During the process of assaulting and injuring the victimJ, the Defendants could have predicted the circumstance that the victim would die by leaving heavy water to the victim.

B) Furthermore, there was a causal link between the Defendants’ assault and injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim, and the Defendants could have predicted that the victim would die due to their assault and injury.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (two years of imprisonment for the Defendants A, and eight months of imprisonment for the Defendants B) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

around March 2013, there was no fact that the Defendant intended to drink stuff to the victim in the studio toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The above sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable. The sentence of the court below against the defendant B (the defendant 2) is too unreasonable. The sentence of the court below against the defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (part of changes in indictment);

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is examined as ex officio. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Prosecutor added a Belgium around May 2013, and around June 15, 2013, a 's head on the part which inflicted an injury upon each victim by using golf bonds.' From June 25, 2013 to June 15:35, 2013, during the above studio, the Defendant believed the above horses of the Defendants and did not properly study the victim, and the victim was able to see that the victim was able to see the above 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the son.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal of facts as above, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and even though the indictment was partially changed, the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful, it should be examined below in light of the changed facts charged in the trial and the part that the prosecutor tried to assert through

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) Whether the Defendants could have predicted that the Defendants would cause serious water death in the course of assaulting and injuring the victim;

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendants could have predicted the death of the victim by causing severe water to the victim during the process of assaulting and injuring the victim.

(1) At the time I left the victim with heavy water, the Defendants did not appear at the scene, and the Defendants knew that only after half the water was cut off from the victim, the Defendant did so with heavy water.

(2) At the court of the court below, I stated that "no fact was directed by the defendant to cause hot water," and that "the defendant or the defendants did not contain hot water to the victim prior to the instant case. There was no relation with the defendants as I himself/herself, and that the victim's face was first left in the new wall border on June 26, 2013."

(3) Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant A, in the name of “A”, to I on June 2013, 2013, without having the victim study properly, and he did not listen to the Defendants’ horses so that coo was hospitalized in the hospital by “B” as he did not listen to the Defendants’ horses. However, the text message does not include the content that cood the victim or caused hot water to the victim.

(4) Around June 27, 2013, the Defendants were willing to take the victim to the hospital. However, on the grounds that the Defendants did not need to take the victim to the hospital, I stated in the lower court’s court and the investigative agency that the Defendants did not take the victim to the hospital.

(5) The Defendants and the Defendants stated that “The Defendants did not want to have the victim undergo the examination to the extent that they did not want to undergo the examination announcement. The Defendants stated in the court below that “The Defendants did not have been at the time of the victim without any justifiable reason, and that the Defendants were at the time of the victim in relation to the official book.”

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable even if the following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the evidence presented above, are observed.

(1) In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court as follows, it is difficult to believe the statement in the first instance court as it is, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the Defendant A instructed the victim to l to lit the hot water, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The only evidence of the facts charged in this case changed to the effect that Defendant A instructed the victim to care for hot water is outside the statement in the court of the first instance. In light of the following circumstances, the above statement in I is doubtful of credibility.

① As to the reasons for the sheshesheshels a hot water to the victim, the investigative agency and the lower court consistently made a statement to the effect that “the victim does not listen to water and thus bring water to the victim.” In addition, on December 20, 2013, at the Incheon District Court (Case Number 2013Gohap448) sentenced the victim to imprisonment for seven years due to the crime of bodily injury, and appealed, the appeal was made on December 20, 2013, and the appeal was made during the trial of the appellate court as a witness at the trial of the appellate court, and the appeal was made on June 25, 2013 and around June 26, 2013, the lower court reversed the victim’s own statement to the effect that “A was hicking to the victim because it instructed the victim to bring water to the victim.”

② As to the developments leading up to which I selected hot water as a means of injury to the victim, I stated in the court of the court of the court below that “at the time of the court of the court of the court below stated that “the water was broken out because it was hot water,” but ii) in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court, the statement to the effect that “the Defendant A gave rise to water by ordering the Defendant A to be able to pay the water.”

③ With regard to the process of liting the victim's water from the trial, I made a statement to the effect that "When a witness sends a word that explains the situation to "O" around June 25, 2013 and around June 26, 2013, Defendant A made a phone call from Defendant A with a sign of limitation on the sender, Defendant A made an entry into water, and Defendant A instructed him to bring the water at the time of hiting, and 4) "the water was twice twice. The victim did not have any response, and the victim did not have any response, the victim instructed the victim to put the water from the floor, and told the following behavior."

Meanwhile, according to the fact that I stated at the lower court on June 25, 2013 that I stated that I would like to read hot water to A: 7) Defendant B would also have the same effect; 8) Defendant B would have sent 'Jenera to Defendant B' on June 25, 2013, 9) I would have been presumed to have 18:0 to 23:3:6:0 on June 26, 2013, Defendant B would have been 1 to 2:6:3:0 on June 26, 2013, Defendant B would have been 1 to 3:6:6:0 on June 26, 201, Defendant B would have been 1 to 2:7:0 on June 26, 2013, Defendant B would have been 1 to 3:6:0 on June 27, 201.

There is considerable doubt.

(1) In order to increase the sentence of the first instance court (seven years of imprisonment) in the appellate case of one’s injury (Seoul High Court 201488) committed without combining the case of the Defendants, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that one would make a false statement in order to avoid the responsibility of the victim’s death to the Defendant A.

(B) Furthermore, on June 27, 2013, at around 01:40, Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant B, stating that “A was stringed with the test,” “I am dead. I see why why I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, and I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, and I am the body, I am the body, I am the body, and I am the body, you am the body, you am the body.”

(C) Despite the reversal of the above statement by 1, in the case of death or injury inflicted upon I, unlike this case, the argument was concluded without filing an application for alteration of indictment and sentenced to this judgment.

(2) Whether the Defendants were or was able to anticipate the Defendants’ act of jointly committing an act of deceiving the victim’s images

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was either the Defendants, or could have anticipated the Defendants, to jointly engage in the act of raising the victim’s image, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) Examining the contents of text messages sent and received by the Defendants around June 25, 2013, the Defendants did not know about whether they were assaulted beyond the victim’s degree, but rather, if the Defendants informed the police of the assault and bodily injury of the Defendants, and if the above crime is known to the outside, the Defendants have collected measures to reverse all responsibility to the Defendants. 16)

(2) Defendant A did not visit the house by June 27, 2013, which was later hot water, after June 15, 2013, until June 27, 2013, and it appears that Defendant A was unable to fully recognize the mental condition at the time, the degree of punishment for the victim, etc.

(3) On June 26, 2013, at I’s house around 15:23, Defendant B confirmed the degree of the victim’s video loss, and sent to Defendant A a text message stating, “I see how much heavy water is snicked, and not snicked. It must be immediately bound.” 17) The above text message revealed that Defendant B was very yellow due to the Defendant B’s unexpected act, and it is against the fact that I her act was an act that the Defendants could not have anticipated. 2) Whether there was causation between the victim’s assault and the victim’s death or could have anticipated the victim’s death at the time of the Defendants’ harmful act.

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to acknowledge that there was a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ assault and bodily injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim, and even if there was a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ harmful act and the death of the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the Defendants could have anticipated the death of the victim due to the

(1) The Defendants’ last injury inflicted upon the victim is based on June 15, 2013, two weeks prior to the date of the victim’s death. As such, when the victim suffered injury as recognized in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, it can be sufficiently recovered if they were to undergo pharmacologic treatment, and it would be extremely low that the victim’s injury would result in death only by the above injury. On June 25, 2013, even if the victim’s injury was in a state before the victim entered a video, it would not be deemed that the victim could no longer receive medical treatment and recovery and it was impossible for the victim to do so.

(2) The appraiser P of the National Scientific Investigation Agency, who conducted the autopsy against the victim, appears to have changed by infections in the victim’s visual image and visual side of not less than 2 degrees wide in the victim’s telegraph via a written autopsy test, and determined that the victim’s sexual chronological cryption and acute cryption appears to have been combined with the victim’s sexual chronological cryposis, including a wide range of organizational loss, the face and head’s left side, the upper part of the face and head, the upper part, and the upper part, and a large number of organizational loss, the spryption, the spryption and the upper part in the telegraph, and the spryption of the victim’s sexual cryposis were accompanied by the victim’s cryposis and cryposis in the face.

(3) The results of the examination of the body of the victim include only the body of the victim after examining only the external appearance of the body of the victim, and include that it is difficult to exclude the possibility of a telegraph infection(s) by video, even in the result of the examination.

(4) On July 24, 2013, the appraiser P made a telephone conversation with the prosecutor on July 24, 2013, and “the images would normally have contributed more to the satisfy on the satisfy. The same shall apply to a place where the opinion by the satisfying is seen. There is an pulmonary satfy or acute trafy in the brain satitis and the satisfy in the organizational examination on the pulmonary satisfy and the satisfy. These things are not very serious, but they are not very serious, but they are satisfyed to the degree to begin to prevent the satisfy, rather than the situation where the satisfy was infected by the video, and thus, I would like to be able to see that the satisfy is infected by infection and that the satisfy will be caused by the death

(5) In addition, the above P appeared as a witness in this court and stated that "the image that occurred in the victim's body before entering the video would be worse at a higher speed, or that it affected the victim's progress by contributing to the aggravation of the victim's health condition by damage to the victim's death by video, etc., but the direct cause of the victim's death was considered to be video, and the victim's blood transfusion is deemed to be the victim's blood transfusion from image, and even if the victim's body had a wound, the victim did not die in the absence of image, and the victim suffered video loss at 80% of the total body area of the body, and the victim was 2-3 or 4-wayed by the victim's image, and even if the victim was not suffering from the victim's body, this would have caused the victim's death only on the basis of this image."

(6) According to the autopsy test report, the victim’s face and head’s left side is emphasizing the front part of the victim’s face.

In depth 22.0 x 15.0 cm of the skin (limited to the largest main body among the top parts in which the victim suffered), the head of the skin, 4.0 x 1.5 cm from the upper part of the upper part of the body, the head of the body in question, and the 1.0 cm from the upper part of the body in which the person in question was involved, the head of the body in question, and the size of the 1.0 cm from the upper part of the body in which the person in question was affected, and the head of the body in question, and the 1.0 cm from the upper part of the body in which the person in question was affected, and the 1.0 cm from the lower part of the floor in which the person in question was found to have been mixed.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable even if the following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the evidence presented above, are observed.

(1) Whether Defendant A was given the victim’s head with his/her marking and golf loan as stated in the facts charged

Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant A’s use of labels and golf loans with the victim’s arms and parts, etc., but the victim’s head was not true.

According to the evidence examined above, around May 12, 2013, Defendant B sent a text message to Defendant A with the phrase “the sea was made.” Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant A, Defendant A sent a text message with the phrase “at the time of indoor Belgium,” and Defendant A made a statement to the effect that “I had any possibility of committing a crime by reducing the investigation agency and the court of the court below in order to protect the Defendants who were physically subordinate to the investigation agency and the court of the court below.”

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that Defendant A was at the time of the victim’s head by using labels or golf loans on May 2013 and June 15, 2013 only with the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The only evidence of Defendant A’s alteration of this part of the facts charged is the only evidence at the court of the first instance. The above statement of Defendant A is not reliable in light of the following circumstances. ① The investigative agency and the court of the court below consistently stated that Defendant A did not have any fact when the victim’s head was the victim’s head, and that only the victim was when the victim was the victim’s head. ② A voluntarily reversed Defendant A’s statement to the effect that Defendant A’s head was the victim’s head. 21) As to the form of golf loans, I stated to the effect that the investigation agency and the court of the court below consistently stated that Defendant A was “a golf loan with no Hd.” However, Defendant A’s previous statement to the effect that Defendant A’s head was the victim’s head, and that Defendant A did not have any conflict with the above statement of Defendant A’s psychological analysis report prepared on August 1, 2013.

③ As to the situation at the time when Defendant A assaulted the victim with golf loans, Defendant A stated in the court of the court below that “I was out of the body of the body of the body, such as arms, etc.” and stated in the court of the court below that “I was out of the body of the body of the body of the body of the victim,” and that Defendant A did not mention in the body of the body of the body of the victim at the time when Defendant A assaulted the victim with Belgium.” In addition, Defendant A stated in the court of the court below that “Defendant A was out of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body, such as arms.” In the court of the court of the court below, Defendant A did not assault the victim with Belgium.”

(B) On June 2, 2013, Defendant B sent a text message to Defendant A, “I, while continuing to cast a brupt, was affected by a brupted judgment,” which is deemed to have a brupted judgment, and that “I, from around May 2013, 2013, shouldered with a brupted judgment.” However, considering the circumstances where I began to enhance the strength of physical punishment against the victim, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the said text message alone was when I was the head of the victim on May 2013, as indicated in the facts charged.

(2) Whether there exists causation between the Defendants’ assault and bodily harm and the death of the victim

(A) The above P stated in the court below that "in the case of the victim, the victim was infected by the video side, and there were several germs, including the green spawn, known to be well infected by the image on the spawn test. The victim's blood transfusion can be deemed to be a spawn, which is caused by video," and it cannot be confirmed through the autopsy whether the body was the cause of the spawn's blood transfusion."

(B) In addition, the above P stated in the court of the court below that "other damage except images, or satisfyed by satisfy, but in the case of an ordinary minor damage, satisfyd by satfy," and that " even if the body of the victim was satisfy, it would not have died in the absence of images" and stated that "the most significant contribution to the death of the victim is video."

(C) The highest level of the victim's upper part is the part of the victim's upper part, focusing on the upper part of the victim's face and head's left part, accompanied by the 22.0 x 15.0 cm Scand fin salt certificate with the upper part of the victim's upper part. As seen earlier, the Defendants cannot be found to have committed assault or injured on the head part of the victim. It is difficult to view that the victim died solely on the upper part of the part of the victim's upper part, such as the upper part of the part of the victim's upper part, the front part of the part of the victim's upper part, bucks, and bucks.

(D) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ assault and bodily injury and the death of the victim.

(3) Whether the Defendants could have predicted the victim’s death at the time of assaulting and injuring the victim

(A) In light of the following: (a) Defendant A appears to have received antibiotics from one’s own hospital and deemed to be drinking to the victim; (c) Defendant B appears to be drinking to the victim with salt medication at the pharmacy; and (d) Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant B on June 20, 2013, stating that “the victim was aware of her antibiotics and her child and her child and her child,” etc., Defendant A may be deemed to have been determined to have been able to easily cure the wife suffered by her act of assault and bodily harm by her act of assault and bodily harm, etc.

(B) In the case of Defendant B, it is natural to view that it was difficult for Defendant B to expect that the victim would die due to his act of assault and bodily injury, in light of the shape and characteristics of the tool used when B was at the time of the victim, and the shape and characteristics of the tool used when B was at the time of the victim.

(C) According to the interview recording records with Defendant A, among the psychological analysis report with Defendant A, Defendant A stated to the effect that Defendant A brought golf loans that he did not have the hedging to I, and that Defendant A was unaware of the death of the victim due to the fact that he did not have any hedging. 35)

(D) In light of the above overall circumstances, the Defendants could not have predicted that the victim could die due to their assault and bodily injury.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is not reasonable to include the prosecutor's grounds for appeal and the changes in indictment.

B. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of fact

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that Defendant A could have recognized the fact of eating drugs to the victim.

A) In the lower court’s trial, around March 2013, when I, M, and the Defendants were in the room room in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, A stated that there was a fact that she intended to drink the tax item to the victim in the room room room room room room, and the content of the statement is not deemed to be particularly exaggerated.

B) The Defendant B stated that “The victim would have expressed to B that he would return to Gangseo in the department room at the department room at Busan, and Defendant A and I would have fluencing it, and that Defendant A and Defendant A continued to flucing the victim in the vehicle that Defendant A and Defendant A would return to the above flucing room and continued to arrive in the flucing room at the flucing room, and that Defendant A would not flucing the flucing agents at the flucing room, and the victim would have flucing the flucing agents in the flucing room at the flucing room.”

C) According to the contents of Defendant A’s cell phone recording, Defendant A’s cell phone recording is recorded with the purport that Defendant A’s 'O' is inevitably able to see the victim’s Ma as food, and that A’s human nature is unnecessary due to A’s bad family environment, which corresponds to I and M’s above statement.

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justifiable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented above.

A) Defendant B stated at the investigative agency that “The sound shown that Defendant A she was satisfing with the victim and satisfy toilet,” and Defendant A made a statement that “I am satfy with the same disease as A, A, and I am saty.” Defendant B made a statement to the same purport at the time of an interview to prepare a report on psychological analysis with the Defendants, and Defendant B made a statement to the same effect as above, and 37) in light of the consistent attitude that Defendant B tried to refrain the Defendant A’s unfavorable statement to the investigation agency as much as possible, the above statement is highly credibility.

B) At the investigative agency around March 2013, I stated to the effect that “Defendant A taken ice ice ice in the kitchen room room room room and ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice in the victim.” After Defendant A coming from the toilet, Defendant A stated to the effect that “I left the victim as ice ice ice ice she was not the victim’s right away, and she was not the victim.” The above statement made by Defendant I was very specific and similar in the court of original instance. In light of the fact that I made a statement to the effect that it is very specific and similar in the court of original instance, the above statement is credibility (However, in light of the situation of confusion at that time, I could have failed to accurately grasp what the victim actually dice ice walk.).

C) Through a telephone conversation with a prosecutor, M made a statement to the effect that “Defendant A her parents saw that she would drink the victim’s spawn”, and 39) M’s father N also respondeded to the purport that “Defendant A, his father, who was his father, was in a spawn relationship with Defendant A, was spawn to the effect that “Defendant A was spawn to the victim that she was spawn,” and the above statement is 40) that each of the above statements conforms to the purport of the above statements made by Defendant B and I (However, in light of the present circumstances, M is likely that Defendant A was unable to accurately grasp what she actually spawn to the victim).

D) As such, each of the above statements by Defendant B, I, M, and N is reliable, and all of them are consistent with the purport that “Defendant A was drinking a body that cannot be consumed by people.”

Therefore, Defendant A’s ground of appeal is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

○ Defendants: Articles 257(1), 30 (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment), 260(1), and 30 (the point of violence and the choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment and concurrent punishment as provided for in the crime of injury around June 15, 2013, with the largest penalty)

1. The grounds for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than six years and six months;

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines: Six months to five years and six months (with respect to each violent crime group, each injury crime, each type of general injury (with respect to general injury), choice of the aggravated area, special adjustment of the scope of sentence (in the event that a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, six months to three years of imprisonment, and aggravated factors: the motive for the crime, method of cruel crimes, victims vulnerable to the crime) and the special adjustment of the scope of sentence (in the event that a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, the aggravated factors shall be applied), with respect to the crime of assault, the aggravated area among the first penalty (general assault) of the assault crime, the special adjustment of the scope of sentence (in the event of imprisonment between April and one year, and six months: the motive for the crime, the law on the number of cruel crimes, and victims vulnerable to the crime), and then the standards

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Two years of imprisonment;

The Defendant recognized most of the crimes committed by the Defendant who assaulted the victim or inflicted bodily injury on the victim, and appeared to have an attitude to repent in depth at the latest. The Defendant has been making efforts to recover damage by deposit the parent of the victim with the above Defendant B as the victim and depositing KRW 1,50 million with the victim. The Defendant has no criminal record prior to each of the crimes in this case.

However, each of the crimes of this case by the Defendant appears to have been an opportunity to increase the degree of violence more than that of the Defendant by making the Defendant use of his own name and make it possible for the Defendant to assault and injure the victim under the pretext of his study of high school school students who had been dead at the time of his school life training in Gangseo-ju, Incheon, and with the Defendant I and B, which caused violence and injury to the victim. The crime of this case is very serious in quality of the crime. The Defendant A, due to his mental fission, made 'O' and made 'O', and continuously demanded I to assault the victim according to her own instructions. As such, the Defendant seems to have been an opportunity to increase the degree of violence more than that of the Defendant. The Defendant was ordered to take active measures, such as sending the victim's image already and sent it to the hospital even though she was in a critical condition of self-defense, and by taking account of the need to punish the victim's behavior by disregarding the suffering of the victim and the victim together with the Defendant's behavior.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the recommended type of punishment on the above sentencing guidelines (two to five months of imprisonment), the sentence of the lower court is not to be mitigated even considering that the Defendant made efforts to recover damage to the victim in the trial. Meanwhile, considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant in light of the above favorable circumstances, the sentence of the lower court is not to be sentenced by taking into account the lower court’s punishment. In so doing, the sentence was determined as ordered in consideration of all the above circumstances.

(b) Defendant B: 8 months of imprisonment;

As seen earlier, as the Defendant was in the trial, he has made a serious effort to recover damage, such as making the victim’s parents deposited with the Defendant A as the victim and depositing KRW 150,000,000,000, and the Defendant recognized all of his criminal acts and took the attitude to repent of his mistake late and late. There was no criminal punishment prior to each of the crimes in this case, and the Defendant appears to have abused the victim according to the orders of the above Defendant A or I, and at the same time, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the Defendant A when considering violence exceeding the degree of the Defendant A at the time.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed against high school students with the ability of self-defense by Defendant A and I, and the quality of the crime is poor. In addition to the assault stated in the facts charged of this case, the Defendant committed several assaults against the victim, as well as the Defendant appears to have committed several assaults against the victim, such as antenna, etc., and the Defendant proposed to select the victim's saw-to-sp top top top top top top top to the victim, or made an assault without any specific criminal responsibilities such as exchanging the victim's personality Mos and Mos to the victim while transmitting the victim's photograph to the above defendant, or giving the victim's character Mosp to the victim, even though the Defendant knew of the fact that the victim suffered pictures, etc., was taken by care of the victim's own self-defense, and did not withdraw proper measures against the victim's own heavy water, and in light of the fact that it was necessary to induce the victim to conceal the crime of this case, the Defendant was a person who recorded the victim's sexually.

In addition, considering all other circumstances that may serve as the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two years and six months of imprisonment), the sentence of the lower court is not to be mitigated even considering the fact that the Defendant has endeavored to recover the victim’s damage in the trial. Meanwhile, considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant as above, the lower court’s punishment is not to be imposed by taking into account the above favorable circumstances of the Defendant. In so doing, the sentence was set as the order

Part of innocence (the point of injury or death)

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendants and I, as indicated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, had the victim J (Nam, 16 years of age) thought to have the victim attend the register even through harsh body punishment unless the victim J (Nam and 16 years of age) opened the register. Defendant A could not return the victim to Gangnam, as above, but around March 2013, on the ground that the victim told B that he would return to Gangnam, the victim would have expressed that he would return to Gangnam, but on the ground that around March 2013, the victim would have expressed that he would return to Gangnam, I would have the body of the victim together with I in the stud room toilet of Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, 403, and even there was a time to see that the victim would attempt to take a stuff, and the victim would not turn back

2.3

I, from May 2013 to June 2013, on the ground that the victim did not attend the above studio, caused the victim's body by using five-time golf loans, etc., the victim's head, shoulder gate, heat gate, etc., and the defendant A and B punished the victim at least twice a week. In particular, around May 2013, the defendant A found that I did not hear the victim's studio and did not hear the victim's studio, but did not have the victim's studio at the victim's 2nd studio and 3rd studio, etc. before the victim's studio, the victim's 2nd studio did not have the victim's studio at the victim's body before the victim's studio and 2nd 3rd studio, etc., and the victim's 2nd 1st studio in the above studio.

As such, from May 2013 to June 2013, the Defendants received contact with 1,200 p.m. 1, and found in the above studio as a Belgium, antenna, golf, etc., and suffered injury to the victim, i.e., a knife, a knife, a knife, and a knife knife.

In addition, Defendant A made a virtual figure of 2009 and introduced it to the internal body, and he sent I and received text messages as her, I think 'A' as 'I' and 'I think 'I' as 'I' as 'I', and 'I think 'I' as 'I' as 'I' and 'I think 'I' as 'I' as 'I'. In particular, around May 13:42, 2013, Defendant A sent text messages to 'I' and caused the victim to die 'I', 'I will die 'I' as I', 'I will die 'I'. I will die 'I' or 'I will die 'I'. I will die 'I will die 'I' as I'.'

In addition, around June 24, 2013, the Defendants did not properly study the victims, and they did not listen to the horses of the Defendants, so it was false that Yoo was hospitalized in the hospital that 'Woo' caused 'Woo' caused 'Woo' to 'Woo' to 'Woo' as she did not hear the horses of the Defendants.

Before June 24, 2013, from June 27, 2013 to June 27, 2013, I told the victim’s above studio in a situation where the victim’s above studio is believed and psychologically unstable. While the victim’s public book was being kept, the victim talked about the situation by phoneing the victim to the defendant A who would not properly attend the public book, and Defendant A suffered an injury by 3 degrees of image, etc. on the body of the victim, which the victim saw hot water to cause hot water to the victim twice in accordance with the above order. Accordingly, the Defendants jointly and jointly with I inflicted an injury on the victim’s body, such as image, heat, and scam, etc., caused the victim’s death by an electric scam, etc. at the above studio around June 29, 2013.

2. Determination

Of the summary of the above facts charged, the part that Defendant A was at the time of the victim's head with Belgium and golf loan, and the part that Defendant A caused the victim's death with heavy water, and the part that the defendants caused the victim's death with the victim's injury to the victim constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in the above 3-A. Thus, the above facts charged contain the injury and the crime of assault recognized above, but the above facts charged contain the above facts charged as stated in the judgment and the crime of assault, and the defendants have the opportunity to exercise sufficient defense right during the process of the examination of evidence, although the defendants were recognized as guilty without any substantial disadvantage to the defendant's defense right without any changes in the indictment, and thus, the part of the injury and the assault in the judgment as stated above is found guilty without going through the procedure of changing the indictment. Thus, the judgment is not to be pronounced separately.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges of the presiding judge, Yellow Judge

Judges Singing on Board

Judges Nam-yang

1) The nine pages of the examination of witness in one of the second trial records in the trial of the party;

2) The trial records No. 120 pages

3) exempt from the examination protocol No. 23-25 of the second trial records in the trial records

4) Of the second trial records, the examination of the witness with respect to I from 23 to 25 pages

5) The 10th examination protocol of the witness examination of I out of the second examination protocol of the trial of the party;

6) Of the second trial records, the examination of witness in the examination protocol No. 23-25 of the trial records

7) The trial records No. 120 pages

8) Evidence records No. 485

9) Right to separate evidence records 9, 388

10) Evidence records No. 209

11) No. 343 of title 7, except that the content cannot be confirmed by the record.

12) Right 7 non-exclusive rights 343

13) Evidence records No. 160, 166

14) I stated that the capacity of smelling at an investigative agency is about 4 litresponding, and that the capacity of small smelling is about 2 litresponding (the steam record No. 118 pages).

15) Right 9 Right 410

16) Right 9, 363, 364

17) Right 9, Right 399, Right 9

18) Evidence records 699 pages

19) The trial records No. 104

20) Summary of trial records No. 107

21) Evidence Nos. 945, 948, and No. 96 of the public trial records

22) Examination of evidence Nos. 934, examination of witness in one of the second trial records in the trial of the court of the first instance, 4, 5 pages

23) Evidence No. 1060, No. 96 of the public trial records

24) The fourth page of the protocol of examination of a witness to I in the second protocol of the trial of the party.

25) Evidence records No. 1328

26) The trial records No. 117 pages

27) Evidence records No. 941

28) Court records No. 119

29) The trial records No. 128, 129

30) The trial records No. 132, 132

31) Evidence records No. 721

32) Evidence records No. 866

33) Evidence records No. 742

34) Evidence records No. 946

35) Evidence records No. 1328

36) Evidence records No. 1032

37) Evidence records No. 1336

38) Evidence records No. 945

39) Evidence records No. 1469

40) Evidence records, 960