2013Do13615 A. homicide

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

C. Attempted Fraud

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

F. Violation of the Resident Registration Act

(g) Attempted aiding and abetting fraud;

1. (a) b. c. d. e.

IA

2. (a) b. c. d. f.

B

3.(a)(b)

c

4.g.

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant A, B, C, and Prosecutor

Attorney DG (for defendant A, B, and C, for the sake of

J Law Firm (For Defendant D)

[Defendant-Appellant] K

DH Law Firm (for Defendant A, B, and C)

Attorney DI

Attorney E (for Defendant A, B, and C)

H Law Firm (For Defendant B and C)

Attorney I, CY

Seoul High Court Decision 2013No1887 Decided October 31, 2013

February 27, 2014

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant A, B, and C

A. In a criminal trial, the conviction of guilt should be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to lead a judge to a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant. However, such conviction should not be necessarily formed by direct evidence, unless it violates the experience and logic rules, and it can be formed by indirect evidence. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts of crime, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a whole if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a whole, even if it does not have full probative value as to the facts of crime, it can be found that the facts of crime are established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001; 201Do4392, Nov. 27, 201; 2008Do507, Mar. 27, 2008).

The court below found Defendant A guilty of murder in the facts charged, taking into account the following as a whole: (a) the finding of the victim’s death; (b) there are very doubtful circumstances in the criminal administration of Defendant A related to the victim’s death, such as the process of finding the victim’s death; (c) Defendant A’s act of entering the house; and (d) Defendant C’s false statement instruction; and (c) Defendant A’s death on the date of death; (d) it is difficult to deem that the victim committed suicide or was dead; (e) the victim’s conflict with the victim; and (e) there were motives to murder the victim A, such as the insurance relationship; and (e) further, Defendant A and B attempted fraud against Defendant A and Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd.; (e) attempted fraud on the victim’s Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (FFL insurance); (e) each violation of the Narcotics Control Act (f) the receipt and use of psychotropic drugs by Defendant A; and (e) Defendant C’s violation of the psychotropic Drugs Act.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and records in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court’s findings of fact

The judgment is justifiable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the principle of no accusation, the commencement and impossibility of enforcement, the joint principal offender, and the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc.

In addition, examining various circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as Defendant A’s age, character, conduct and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the determination of the original deliberation sentence, which sentenced 20 years to Defendant A, cannot be deemed as having been extremely unfair even when considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

B. Meanwhile, Defendant C’s assertion of error in the law was first raised in the final appeal, and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Moreover, even in light of the relevant legal principles and records, it is difficult to view that Defendant C’s violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (franking) due to psychotropic drugs constitutes a mistake in the law under Article 16

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

2. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the following facts: (a) Defendant B and C’s murder among the facts charged; (b) Defendant C’s attempted fraud against the Victim Samsung Bio-stock Co., Ltd.; (c) Defendant A and B’s attempted fraud against Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Non-Distribution-Scambom death and Non-Distribution-Scam Accident Insurance); (d) Defendant C’s attempted fraud against the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd.; (e) Defendant C’s violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. due to the possession of psychotropic drugs by Defendant A, B, and C among the primary facts charged; (e) violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. by Defendant B and C’s use of psychotropic drugs; and (e) violation of the Resident Registration Act; (e) violation of the Resident Registration Act; and (e) violation of the Act on the use of private Documents and No.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Kim Shin -

Justices Min Il-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Park Poe-young