[1] The degree of probative value of evidence to acknowledge criminal facts in a criminal trial

[2] The probative value of indirect evidence

[3] In a case where the Defendant was indicted for murdering Party A by making the pesticide contained in PT disease in advance, depending on the cresh under the influence of alcohol, the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles, etc. by misapprehending the legal principles, even though there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the charges, or it is difficult to believe that there is probative value even if there is no direct evidence to acknowledge the guilty of the charges, and the remaining indirect evidence cannot be seen as having been comprehensively considered, even though it is difficult to view that there is probative value

[1] Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231 Decided June 28, 2012 (Gong2012Ha, 1367) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392 Decided November 27, 2001 (Gong2002Sang, 228) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3163 Decided September 13, 2004

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Lee Han-ro et al.

Daejeon High Court Decision 2014No189 decided December 10, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In a criminal trial, the recognition of criminal facts ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which leads a judge to have a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not reach the extent that such conviction may be given, the determination ought to be made in the interests of the defendant even if there are suspicions of guilt, such as inconsistency with the defendant’s assertion or defense or uncomfortable dismissal (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do231, Jun. 28, 2012).

2. We examine the gist of the judgment of conviction revealed by the court below.

Under the premise that the victim’s death was not the victim’s suicide but the Defendant’s planned crime, the lower court stated to the effect that “The victim’s death was the victim’s 1st time after the victim’s interview with the police officers three times on November 4, 2013, on the day of the instant case, and did not bring about pesticide disease to the apartment of this case, and that the victim was not aware of his death,” and that the victim’s first statement was made before the victim’s death in the middle patient room and was naturally and objectively inconsistent with the victim’s attitude and objective circumstance, and thus, the lower court found the victim’s credibility of the above statement because the Defendant could not immediately be found that the victim’s death was the victim’s first time after the victim’s death, and that the Defendant could have discovered the Defendant’s first pest and the Defendant’s first time after the victim’s death, and that the Defendant could have been found to have been aware of the motive of the victim’s death and the Defendant’s second time after the victim’s death.

3. The lower court’s conviction is difficult to accept in full view of the following circumstances.

A. As to the statement of the victim who does not commit suicide

(1) Examining the record, the following facts are revealed.

① Family members of the victim, including Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, who are the victims, continuously demanded the victim to return the apartment of this case and the instant apartment on October 25, 2013. On the same day, the victim was living together with the Defendant on the instant apartment on October 25, 2013. Whether the victim would see that she would have a son’s own life without any refusal to do so? If the victim want to do so so, she would not see that she would have a her life as soon as she would do so, so that she would have no other way to do so, and would have no other way to do so. The victim sent a text message to Nonindicted 1, 200, stating that “I would have no other way to do so, I would like to do so, and I would like to do so, I would like to do so.” The victim sent it to Nonindicted 4 and I would like to see that I would have no other way to do so even if you want to do so.”

② Since the occurrence of the instant case, Non-Indicted 8’s mother, it was difficult to help Non-Indicted 8 dynasium. After Non-Indicted 8’s residence, approximately 150m lynasium 50m lynasium was found to have 1 disease. The above dynasium was manufactured by adding malodor and fynasium so as to synasium so that the hynasium can synasium, and Non-Indicted 8’s dynasium. On the day of Non-Indicted 1’s death, the victims were constantly aware that Non-Indicted 1’s dynasium and Non-Indicted 8’s dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium on the day when Non-Indicted 8’s dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dyna.

③ The victim’s earth and sand did not appear near the kitchen in which alcohol was drinking, but was in the vicinity of the toilet at the entrance of the entrance. At the time of the mouth, the victim was in the state of being off his clothes. The record of the clinical record of the Emergency Medical Center prepared immediately after the victim arrived at the Yancheon University Hospital, stating that the victim was spiting in his body.”

④ On November 5, 2013 through July 7, 2013, the victim responded to the questions of police officers three times in total, from the time when he was sent to the patient room at the above hospital. On November 6, 2013, the victim made a conversation with Nonindicted 5 and his offspring 4, and on November 6, 2013, the victim made a consistent statement to the effect that, in the process, “I do not know of why an agrochemical would have been drinking. I do not know of why an agrochemical would have been drinking. I do not know of what circumstances. I want to drink.” The victim also stated that “I would not drink a pesticide?” the police officer or his children’s repeated questions that the Defendant would have been sent to the hospital, and that the victim would not memory without clearly identifying the Defendant as a criminal offender.

(2) In light of the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and records, the victim’s statement that was not a suicide is not entirely reliable because it is inconsistent with the objective circumstances.

① During the dispute between the Defendant and his/her family members, the victim expressed his/her intent not only before the victim’s complaint, criticism, interference, pressure, etc., but also on the day of the case. In particular, in text messages sent to his/her birth and his/her father, the victim expressed his/her intention to die on several occasions, and specifically mentioned the method of ex post facto burial.

② In light of the circumstances in which the Defendant had been under drinking on the day of the instant case, it appears that the Defendant was under drinking at least a number of illness of beer, 1 disease of beer, and 1/5 disease of beer, so even if the victim was under drinking the remainder, considering the victim’s usual drinking volume, it appears that the victim was not under drinking. Moreover, since the victim had been well aware of the color or smell of beer farm. Therefore, even if the victim had been under drinking on the day of the instant case, it would be difficult to readily conclude that the victim was under drinking and drinking out of being under drinking, such as beer or beer, and that it would be difficult to readily conclude that the victim was under drinking and drinking out of drinking water at the time of being under drinking, and that it would be difficult to readily conclude that the victim was under drinking and drinking out of drinking water at the time of being under drinking, and that it would be difficult to see that the victim was under drinking water at the time of being under drinking, even if the victim was under drinking, without being able to have been under drinking.

③ Meanwhile, the judgment of the court below revealed that the victim’s statement was made before the patient’s death in the middle-patient room, and thus, its credibility is recognized. On the other hand, the victim explained in the patient’s room that, in the dialogue with the police officer or dialogue with Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 4, the victim anticipated the victim’s death without fear of the victim’s death, or knew about the aggravation of the state of life, the victim was a strong doubt about his/her life. As above, the court below acknowledged the victim’s statement made in the patient’s room as the statement immediately before the death was anticipated, while recognizing the victim’s death as the statement immediately before the death was anticipated on the other hand, and recognized as the statement in the situation where the victim’s will for life was presented without predicting the death on the other hand.

④ The victim did not designate the Defendant as a criminal at a single time in the process of making a statement over several occasions after drinking. However, if the victim knew that he did not commit suicide but did not commit suicide, but was aware that he did so, he would have the Defendant as a criminal with a view to drinking, then it would be a normal response to expressing suspicion that the Defendant might have been drinking in a way such as burning an agrochemical at the time, even though he was under the influence of alcohol in detail. Nevertheless, the victim did not express a special decentralization against the Defendant until the end of questioning about the inducement nature of the Defendant or his children, and it was not clear that the Defendant would have been allowed to have the apartment house of this case, which was a criminal suspect, and that the Defendant would have the apartment house of this case.

⑤ 다만, 피해자가 조사 과정에서 ‘피고인이 집에다 농약을 갖다 놨다라고 생각을 하느냐’는 질문에 ‘그럴 것 같다’는 대답을 하기도 하였으나, 이는 경찰관의 반복적인 유도성 질문에 대한 답변 과정에서 나온 것인데다가, 위와 같은 내용의 답변은 극히 일부에 불과할 뿐이고 피해자 진술의 전체적인 취지는 음독 경위가 기억나지 않는다는 내용임이 분명해 보인다. 또한 피해자가 아들 딸과의 대화 과정에서 ‘내가 잘못되면 피고인을 용서하지 마라’는 취지의 언급을 1-2회 한 것은 사실이나, 이는 피고인의 농약투입 사실이 새삼스레 기억이 나서 한 진술이라기보다는 결과적으로 이런 모든 상황에 이르게 된 책임이 피고인에게도 있다는 점을 지적하기 위한 것일 수도 있다.

6) In light of the fact that all agrochemicals stored in the PT disease and non-indicted 8's greenhouse located in the Posiwait PT PT disease are hyp hyp hym. In light of the fact that some agrochemicals stored in the plastic house are identical in their ingredients and kinds, it can be presumed as part of the agrochemicals stored in Non-indicted 8, but in detail, it is not revealed when and how the above agrochemicals were acquired and carried in to the apartment of this case. Accordingly, the court below mentioned the possibility that the defendant brought about agrochemicals into the plastic house around October 25, 2013 after the victim was found in the house of Non-indicted 8 and around October 25, 2013. However, the judgment of the court below is difficult to find out the possibility that the victim would have easily been used in the instant case, rather than in the case of Non-indicted 8's hyp lyp son and the defendant's hym kym kym sym sium.

B. As to the motive and plan for murder

(1) As can be seen by the record, the victim made a speech and behavior that seems to have been different by not responding to the Defendant’s communication over several occasions after leaving the apartment of this case, and by reporting the loss of the credit card used by the Defendant. For this reason, on October 26, 2013, the Defendant would not be forgotten with the victim, and return it to the Defendant. On November 2, 2013, “I wish to see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will return to the Defendant’s family, and that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will return to the Defendant’s family, and that I would like to see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will return to the Defendant’s family.” On the other hand, I would like to see that I would like to see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will return to the Defendant’s family.

(2) The lower court determined that the Defendant could murder the victim in order to not return the instant apartment and the instant motor vehicle to the victim. However, as revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant’s person demanding the return of the apartment and the instant motor vehicle to the Defendant, as revealed in the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, cannot be deemed as a sufficient motive for murdering the economic motive cited by the lower court, in light of the circumstances where: (a) Nonindicted 5, who was not the victim, and the victim did not strongly demand the return of the apartment and the instant motor vehicle; and (b) the victim expressed Nonindicted 4, his father, who was his father, expressed that “the apartment, would be ○○, and would have brought about, it would be good when the apartment would bring about the car.” (c) In full view of the fact that the issue of return of the apartment and the instant motor vehicle, etc., is not a problem that the Defendant would kill the

(3) The facts charged of the instant case reveal that “the Defendant was able to kill the victim and prepared to do so in Scargwa PT disease with his carock, and the victim had the victim know of the gap under the influence of alcohol, depending on the glass neck of the victim.” This means that on the day of the instant case, the Defendant plans to kill the victim in advance, not to have killed the victim in a sudden and consistent manner by means of a sudden shock during drinking with the victim. However, if the Defendant and the victim were to die in a situation where only the Defendant and the victim are located in the apartment of the instant case, it would be sufficiently anticipated that the Defendant’s act can be seen as booming. Thus, if the Defendant plans to commit the crime closely as above, then the place of the instant apartment did not select the place of the instant apartment, and rather, the Defendant did not have any possibility of selecting the victim in advance, and the Defendant did not have any specific place to commit the instant crime.

C. As to the Defendant’s fingerprints detected in PT disease

(1) Examining the reasoning and record of the lower judgment, the following facts are revealed.

① On November 4, 2013, the day of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) requested that the Defendant 119 report that “I sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat sat 119; and (b) reported

② In the first-aid service manual of the 119 first-aid service site, the first-aid service provider entered around 19:26 and entered the site at around 19:30, and entered the site at around 19:40, and entered the site at around 19:55, and the first-aid service provider’s evaluation column reads green beverages according to his/her guardian’s words. The first-aid service provider’s evaluation column reads that “at the time of arrival at the site, he/she was in a bath room at the time of arrival at the site, and he/she reads green beverages according to his/her guardian’s words.” The report processing table of the 112 reported case states that “The Defendant, who is the father, is unable to make accurate

③ On November 6, 2013, the Defendant received a police investigation from a witness’s qualification, and testified that “When the victim took care of 119 and returned to his house, she was gathered to confirm whether she had to report or not any of the Macarwa PT diseases in the ward.” The Defendant’s statement was an answer to the police officer’s question whether “I know that Macarwa is discovered in the house,” not an inquiry of the reasons for asking the Defendant’s fingerprints, but rather an inquiry of whether I knew of the fact that Macarwa is located in the house.”

④ On November 6, 2013, the police requested the appraisal of Posit PT disease. On November 13, 2013, there was a result of the appraisal that one fingerprint is identical with the Defendant’s fingerprints among 18 points taken from the disease.

⑤ Meanwhile, the 119 fire fighter, who was called to the scene on the day of the instant case, was 3 persons as Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 11 and public interest personnel, and the police officers on the site were also 3 persons, including Nonindicted 2. At the time of the police investigation, Nonindicted 2 stated that “The 119 members were loaded with the victim by using them, and 119 members went to the 119 vehicle, and the remaining 119 members went to the 119 vehicle.” However, regarding the location where the instant TPP disease was discovered, Nonindicted 2 was under the care of the ward, and was said to be under the care of the ward.

(6) On November 12, 2013, the Defendant, upon emergency arrest, was investigated in police for the first time as a suspect, but discovered Macargwa PT disease, made a statement to the same effect as the statement in the witness’s qualification on November 6, 2013, and made a statement in the prosecutor’s office and court to the same effect as the statement in the witness’s qualification.

(2) According to the following circumstances revealed through the above facts and records, it seems difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s statement that the victim took care of 119 and met Macarwait PT disease was false. Even if the Defendant’s statement was false, it is insufficient to deem that there was proof of criminal facts.

① The Defendant was aware of the victim’s drinking of an agrochemical, etc. on the floor immediately after the occurrence of the accident, and accordingly, seems to have requested the residents next to the Defendant to report and request the victim’s drinking of the drug.

② At the time of police investigation, the Defendant voluntarily stated the discovery of the pertinent PT disease even though the fingerprints was not subject to special investigation, and such statement is relatively consistent until the prosecution and the court.

③ Some of the fire fighters dispatched to the scene appears to have taken off the victim’s disease first, and the fire fighters remaining after collecting the TPP from the victim. The location map where the above TPP disease was discovered may have been located in the ward even after the victim was lost. It is difficult to view that the fire fighters could have been placed in the ward even after the victim was lost. Moreover, there is no obvious circumstance that the fire fighters or police officers at the scene collected the above TPP disease from the moment they discovered it to the outside of the house and seeing or monitoring the above TPP disease in order to view that there was no time for the defendant to temporarily locked before the fire fighters collected it from the scene. Moreover, there is no obvious circumstance that the fire fighters at the scene or police officers at the scene collected the above TPP disease to the point of time from the moment they discovered it to the moment.

D. As to other circumstances

(1) In light of the fact that the defendant requested assistance from 1402, next 119 fire fighters, without reporting the victim's 119 immediately after the victim's reading, and as a result, 119 fire fighters were delayed until the victim's mobilization, it is excessive suppression to deem that the defendant intentionally dispatched the above situation in order to manipulate evidence due to the victim's suicide.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the Defendant made a statement to the police officer, etc. that “the victim’s children sent agrochemicals and caused the victim to die.” However, as seen earlier, it may be deemed that the Defendant, who had been under the influence of alcohol, stated the above in the instant premise that “the victim’s children are responsible for all suicide,” and that the Defendant appears to have never made a false statement to the victim’s children for the purpose of hiding the fact of his/her death. In full view of these circumstances, it is difficult to view such circumstance as the circumstance of the Defendant’s murder.

(3) On the following day of the instant case, the circumstances such as the Defendant’s speech and birth, and immediately requesting the lease of the instant apartment complex, are difficult to view it as the circumstances of the Defendant’s suicide.

E. As to whether sufficient proof of the facts charged was given

(1) Among the evidence adopted by the court below and the court of first instance, the most severe evidence of conviction is the victim's statement that does not constitute suicide, and there are many circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement.

(2) However, even if the credibility of the victim’s statement that does not constitute suicide is acknowledged, there is still a lot of doubt that the instant facts charged is still proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendant’s murdering of the victim by making the victim sagh hand, which the Defendant had been prepared and prepared in the PT disease, saged by the victim, according to the glass balance the victim was faced.

(3) First of all, the victim's statement is merely a statement that the victim did not intend to commit suicide, but is not a statement to identify the defendant as an offender or suspicion. Thus, the part clearly proven by the victim's statement is not a victim's suicide.

(4) The court below affirmed whether the defendant's suicide was connected promptly by the defendant because the defendant was not suicide. However, as seen in the above, it is hard to see that the defendant's motive to kill the victim in this case, and even according to the defendant's circumstances at the time of committing the crime and before and after the crime, it is hard to find out clear circumstances to suspect that the defendant murdered the victim. The facts charged in this case are "the defendant allowed the victim to brue agrochemicals in favor of the victim." However, as revealed by the record, the victim's fingerprints was not detected in glass, and if the victim bruddddd with the pesticide in glass, the pesticide was brue in glass, or if the victim brudddddd with the pesticide in glass, it is difficult to prove that the crime was committed immediately if it was proved that the defendant did not commit suicide.

(5) Meanwhile, as seen earlier, although the Defendant’s fingerprints (one point) was discovered in PTPP disease, the Defendant’s fingerprints was not discovered in PTPP 500 meters l, suspected of being the source of agrochemicals, and as seen earlier, the Defendant’s fingerprint was not detected in PTPP, and as can be seen by the record, the Defendant’s fingerprint was found in the two-way disease, the Defendant’s fingerprint ( nine points), the Defendant’s fingerprint (5 points), and the victim’s fingerprint in the beer disease, and the victim’s fingerprint (1 point) were found in the beer disease. According to the above circumstances, the circumstance that the Defendant’s fingerprint (1 point) was taken in the above PTPP is difficult to conclude that it means that the Defendant was not supported, and it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s fingerprint was made in advance and it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s fingerprint was in accord with the victim’s fingerprint to the extent that it could not be seen as being disadvantageous to the Defendant’s disease (one of the above Defendant’s fingerprint).

4. In conclusion, although the conviction should not be formed by direct evidence, it is formed by indirect evidence as long as it does not violate the experience and logic rules, and even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that cannot be independent if comprehensive consideration of the whole evidence is conducted under mutual relation, it can be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3163, Sept. 13, 2004). However, among the evidence used by the court below and the first instance court as the conviction basis, it is difficult to believe that the direct evidence to acknowledge the defendant's conviction of the facts charged of this case exists or even if there is no direct evidence to acknowledge it, and the remaining evidence is insufficient to consider it as the basis for conviction, and it is difficult to view that there is a comprehensive probative value that cannot be independent by comprehensively considering it as indirect evidence.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the victim of the facts charged in this case that the victim's statement that he did not commit suicide and the defendant's fingerprints based only on the victim's fingerprints, etc., and the victim's murdered with agrochemicals on the victim's soft glass. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the degree of proof required in a criminal trial, thereby exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)