[1] The case holding that where a ship was sold or sunken after navigation in bad control by murdering a part of seafarers, including the captain, etc., such as murdering the ship, it shall be deemed that there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of the ship, and thus, it shall be deemed that there was an intention to

[2] Whether the act of abandoning a dead person's body constitutes an act of false punishment (negative)

[3] Criteria for determining the existence and degree of mental disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Code

[1] The case holding that in case where a ship was sold or sunken after navigation in bad governance by murdering a part of seafarers, including the captain, etc., such as murdering a ship, it shall be deemed that there was an intention to obtain unlawful acquisition of the ship, and thus, it shall be deemed that there was an intention to commit murder at sea (the case of murder on board No. 15)

[2] If a person who kills another person abandons the dead body to another place, the crime of abandonment of the dead body is established separately, and such abandonment shall not be deemed an act after the death of the dead body.

[3] In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Code, the court may independently determine the existence and degree of mental disorder by taking into account the following factors: (a) the expert’s appraisal does not necessarily depend on the background and means of the crime; (b) the related data and the defendant’s behavior before and after

[1] Article 340 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 161 (1) of the Criminal Act / [3] Article 10 of the Criminal Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 84Do2263 delivered on November 27, 1984 (Gong1985, 119) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Do581 delivered on May 13, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1752), Supreme Court Decision 94Do3163 delivered on February 24, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 1515), Supreme Court Decision 96Do638 delivered on May 10, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 1951)

Defendant 1 and five others

Defendants

Attorney Jin-jin et al.

Busan High Court Decision 97No36 delivered on April 18, 1997

All appeals are dismissed.

The defendants and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. As to the assertion against the rules of evidence

A. Examining the evidence of the first instance judgment as cited by the lower court in light of the records, the lower court determined that the Defendants, on board the deep-sea fishing vessel No. 15 of the PESCAR, had Korean seafarers go to the port of private placement to make a resolution on the refusal of operation against the Defendants and to leave the Defendants, on the ground that Korean seafarers were on board the vessel at the south Pacific Ocean, and had them go to the port of private placement in order to make a resolution on the refusal of operation against the Defendants, etc., and that there were seven Korean seafarers, such as the captain, deck, etc. except for the first-class mate’s second-class mate’s interest (27 years old), and ten seafarers, such as Indonesia and Calleg’s Chinese, were detained in the fish hold and sold the vessel to Korea or Japan under their control, and that the Defendants did not have any unlawful intent to kill the vessel by taking measures against other Japanese seafarers, and that there was no violation of the law by taking measures against other Japanese crew members’ will to kill the vessel by force.

B. If a person who kills another person abandons the dead body to another place, the crime of abandonment of the dead body is established separately, and such abandonment of the dead body shall not be deemed an act ex post facto (see Supreme Court Decision 84Do2263, Nov. 27, 1984).

Examining the evidence of the court of first instance cited by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding the defendant as dumping the body into the sea after the defendant died of the victim's maximum knife with a knife with a knife, and then applying the body to the crime of abandonment of the body. There is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete hearing, or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of abandonment of the body, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. As to the assertion of mental disorder

In determining the existence and degree of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, it is not necessarily necessary to depend on the expert’s appraisal, but it is possible for a court to independently determine the existence and degree of the mental disorder by comprehensively taking into account the related data such as the background, means, the defendant’s behavior before and after the crime, and the legal attitude of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Do638 delivered on May 10, 196,

According to the records, the defendants were treated with harsh treatment, such as assaulting from Korean seafarers on the ground that they were well aware of work, etc., and caused the economic failure. After the remaining drinking, the defendants committed the crime of this case in the high level of interest, following the explosion of the enemy in the red sense and the view of the Korean crew, but the crime of this case was committed on the part of the Korean crew. However, the victims, the first class mate, from among the Korean crew members immediately before the crime, were blicked for the operation of the ship, and the remaining Korean crew members were blicked by Defendant 1, who were waiting for murder, and were waiting for the rest of the defendants, who were waiting at the designated location of each of them as a steering house, to kill together, and were able to kill one by seven Korean crew members in the order of Defendant 1. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the defendants did not have the ability to make a decision on the crime of this case at the time of the crime of this case or the ability to change things.

The judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the incomplete hearing or mental or physical disorder as alleged in the judgment below.

3. As to the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

All the Defendants provided security to the shipping company and got on board the ship of this case with money prepared to make it difficult to capture the accident as a captain of the ship, and except Defendant 1, the remaining Defendants, other than Defendant 1, demanded to get off the ship of this case to get off the ship of this case under harsh treatment from Korean seafarers who had no experience in working on board the ship in deep-sea fishing vessel due to violence, etc. while working on board the ship, etc., and forced to get out of the ship of this case due to disciplinary action and go out to leave the ship of this case as the captain of this case after going out to leave the ship of this case due to the completion of the disciplinary action and getting out of the ship of this case, they should bear not only the expenses for staying in the ship of this case and the expenses for returning to the ship of this case, but also the expenses for leaving the ship of this case and the expenses for operating on board the ship of this case. There is no concern for the Defendants to regard the remaining seafarers of this case as economic distress due to their leaving from the ship of this case.

However, as seen earlier, the Defendants gathered the instant crime under the initiative of Defendant 1 in advance and planned. Not only seven seafarers of South Korea, but also murdered with 11 or more human beings, including Don, China, and three seafarers of Indonesia (no prosecution was instituted against these four seafarers) within a short period. In particular, the victim maximum dong-ho (19 years old) was aboard the instant vessel in order to return to franchisium caused by franchisium, while serving aboard another vessel, and did not have any resistance because she did not have any original relationship with the Defendants, and did so for the purpose of concealing the instant crime. However, even if the method of committing the instant crime was 5 days old, the Defendants murdered with the victims or her knife with a knife for treatment, and made it difficult to see the victims' knife and knife the victim's knife to knife the knife, and made it difficult to see the Defendants's knif.

In addition, the Defendants, with the knowledge that the sale of a ship after the crime is not open to the public, tried to kill the ship and make a log raft in order to enter Japan, etc. by the victim's seat, and have been detained in the fish hold and concealed the completely the crime until it is pressured.

In particular, Defendant 1 is in the position of the 2nd mate among the Defendants, and is in the position of the 2nd mate, and cannot impose more heavy responsibilities in that he led the conspiracy of the instant crime and instructed and controlled the other Defendants’ specific action.

Examining the motive, method, result, circumstances after the commission of the crime, and all other sentencing conditions indicated in the record, the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced the death penalty against Defendant 1 is maintained, and the judgment of the court below that sentenced the remaining Defendants to life imprisonment cannot be deemed to be too unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Ultimately, neither the Defendants nor their defense counsel’s grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)