Defendant 1 and one other

Documents of salary;

Attorney Kim Chang-chul

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

One cell phone (LG SB310 (Carrying phone No. 1 omitted) seized is confiscated from Defendant 1 and one cell phone (portable phone No. 2 omitted) from Defendant 2, respectively.

1. Robbery;

Defendant 1 borrowed approximately KRW 1,64,502,120 among the victims from May 19, 2008 to May 21, 2009, and offered as security about KRW 1,664,50,120, the sum from the victim Nonindicted 17 (Nam, 48 years of age) to the victim; Defendant 1 transferred all or 10 parcels of land, including 473 square meters of forest land, and 331 square meters of forest land, 473 square meters, etc.; Defendant 1 created a collateral security right on three lots of land, including 331 square meters of forest land (hereinafter 4 omitted). The Defendants: (a) evaded Defendant 1’s obligation by murdering the victim; (b) transferred the ownership of each of the above real estate transferred to the victim to Nonindicted 12, and (c) intended to transfer the ownership in the name of the victim again and terminate the collateral security right in the name of the victim.

Thus, Defendant 1, at around 16:00 on May 21, 200, transferred the ownership of each of the above real estate to the victim at 603 ○○○○○○○○○○○ apartment house located in Songpa-gu Seoul (hereinafter 23 omitted), and on the following day, at the week immediately following the termination of the right to collateral security, demanded the victim to deliver documents related to the transfer of ownership and the termination of the right to collateral security, such as sales contract and certificate of seal impression, to Nonindicted 6, who is the director of the certified judicial scrivener office stationed in the place, to perform the pertinent registration. Defendant 2, at around 203:0 on May 22, 200, issued approximately 130,000 won of the criminal fund from Defendant 1 to Defendant 2 at the expense of Defendant 1, 14:00 on May 22, 200, to Defendant 200 on the day on which he received the said 200,000 No. 1,00. 3 of the day.

Since then, between 01:00 the following day, the Defendants: (a) made the victim drink alcohol on the second floor of the instant abandoned house; (b) carried the victim into the warehouse on the first floor; and (c) brought the victim into the warehouse; and (d) 12 times the head and face of the victim’s hair and face to approximately 4.5cm in a telescope (round 4.5cm in head diameter); (b) caused the victim to die due to the bones of head, bones, the right shoulder, the right shoulder, etc. at least five times; and (c) caused the victim to die due to brain damage.

2. Abandonment of the dead body.

이후 피고인들은 사체를 은닉하기로 공모하고, 먼저 피해자의 옷을 모두 벗긴 다음 검정비닐을 이용하여 사체의 양쪽 손목을 뒤로 묶고 양쪽 발목을 묶은 후, 그곳에 있던 비닐 2장으로 사체의 머리와 등 부위를 싸고, 청색 비닐봉지 46장으로 사체의 온몸을 겹겹이 둘러 싸고, 다시 사체를 검정색 이불가방 2개에 겹쳐 넣고, 이어서 2 내지 3인용 녹색텐트 2개로 사체를 둘러 싼 상태로 노끈으로 여러 차례 둘러 묶어 피가 새어 나오지 못하게 한 뒤, 2009. 5. 23. 02:00경부터 02:55경까지 사이에 포장한 사체를 토스카차량의 트렁크에 넣고, 피고인 2는 토스카차량을 운전하고 피고인 1은 벤츠차량을 운전하여 사체를 암매장할 장소를 물색하기 위하여 충북 영동 방면으로 진행하여 갔다.

The Defendants got in front of the pressure hall located in the Haak-gun, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Chungcheongnam-do, and did not find a place to store the body up to the place. The Defendants decided to bury the body on the part of Defendant 2-owned, North Korea-U.S., which is not cultivated in the south-gun, North Korea-U.S. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 1 omitted). Defendant 1’s parking in the above rest and going through the above discussion with Defendant 2 on board, and going into the above discussion at around 03:10 to 03:20 on the same day, and tried to store the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

After the same day from 03:50 to 06:50 on the same day, Defendant 1: (a) opened the house between Defendant 2 at the above shelter and Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 8; (b) asked Nonindicted 8 to dispose of the house; and (c) drive the benz to Busan on the surface; and (d) Defendant 2 demanded that the benz be buried at the house of Nonindicted 9 (hereinafter referred to as “22 omitted”); (c) Nonindicted 9 again refused to sell the benz for reasons of different commitments; (d) Non-Indicted 8 (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Indicted 8”) to find out KRW 8 at the disposal of the benz; and (e) to find out that Non-Indicted 8’s bench from 300,000 to 30,000,0000 after the request for treatment; and (e) to find out that Non-Indicted 8’s bench, Nonindicted 8, who is his wife, were present at the 3000, bre.

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 5 and 8 and part of Nonindicted 6’s legal statement

1. The CD verification;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of each prosecutor's suspect against the Defendants

1. Each prosecutor’s protocol on Nonindicted 6, 1, 2, 7, and 20 and each police’s protocol on Nonindicted 3, 4, 9, and 6

1. Notice of communications data, each certified copy of the register of register, photographs, postmortem report, corpse autopsy report, case site map and field photo, notification of communications data (the details of mobile phone phone calls of Defendant 1), NongHyup transaction statement, acceptance certificate, record of verification, investigation date, prosecution (investigation, etc. of vehicle mobile routes of Defendant 1 by a suspect), actual sulfur record, statement of request for appraisal, confirmation, notification of results of cell phone analysis, and notification of results of photo analysis;

1. Records of seizure and list, and records of seizure;

1. Each investigation report (Evidence Nos. 5, 10, 13, 16 through 24, 31, 32, 37, 39, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 57, 58, 61, 75 through 78, 80, 81, 92, 96, 10 through 103, 105 through 107, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115 through 118, 120, 125, 127 through 130, 133);

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

The first sentence of Article 338, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each robbery and the choice of each life style), Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of each abandonment of a dead body)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 (As a result of the choice of life imprisonment in the crime of robbery, which is a serious crime, the other punishment shall not be imposed) of each Criminal Act.

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Details of the assertion;

At the time of this case, Defendant 2 and the victim agreed to do so in the house of this case regardless of Defendant 1, and Defendant 1 left before and after this case, Defendant 2 divided the victim into the house of this case, and Defendant 2 paid 50,000 won that the victim lent to Defendant 2 before the case. Thus, Defendant 2 did not commit each of the crimes, and Defendant 1 did not commit each of the crimes, and the circumstances leading up to Defendant 2 committed each of the crimes of this case are different from the indicated in the judgment.

2. The motive for committing the crime;

A. Whether the defendants' motive to commit the crime is reliable

1) The Defendants asserted that Defendant 2, who was 50,000 won that the victim had been lent to Defendant 2, would be in full payment, and would be bad, that Defendant 2 would die with the victim by getting the victim from the apartment house Mar in the instant case as a contingent.

2) However, the reasoning behind the Defendants’ assertion is that there is no particular strong violent inclinations, and Defendant 2, who does not have any force force, cannot be said to have any motive for the murdering of the victim by extremely cruel means, such as the victim’s hair and face, without drinking.

In addition, Defendant 2 proposed that he would give 400,000 won to Nonindicted 8 as the store price. Thus, Defendant 2 should be deemed to have held at least 40,000 won of money at the time of murdering the victim. Therefore, if the victim said that he would have paid 50,000 won as bad, there is no reason for murdering the victim.

3) According to each of the above evidence, ① the victim’s body was packaged, ② 2 of transparent vinyl paper, 46 of examination plastic paper paper, 2 of green content, strings, strings, etc. were used. ② Defendant 2: (a) string the victim’s body on May 22, 2009; and (b) string the victim’s body into the string strings; (c) the victim’s body was used for committing the crime; (d) the victim’s body was homicided by the method of murdering the victim’s body; and (e) the victim’s body was installed at the strings and the victim’s body at the time of murder with the circumstance as alleged by the Defendants; (d) the victim’s body concentration at the time of killing the victim’s body was very difficult to find out the victim’s body as an open string 20% of alcoholic content; and (e) the victim’s body concentration at the time of killing the victim’s body can be found to any extent.

4) Considering the above circumstances, the motive for the crime alleged by the Defendants cannot be believed at all.

B. Defendant 1’s motive for murder

1) Before the time of the victim's murdering, the part of the penology (the investigative record 44 to 50, 872 to 876 pages) where the victim lent money to Defendant 1 on 13 occasions from May 20, 2008 to May 19, 2009 stated the details of lending money. The above details include the specific terms and conditions of lending, the actual amount of money to be delivered after deducting advance interest, the details of furnishing security of each real estate as stated in the judgment, and the expected method of executing security rights. The above part of the pen pattern accurately conforms with objective data such as account details or real estate register, and its credibility is very high. According to the above part of the pen pattern, the victim loaned the principal amount up to 40 million won to Defendant 1, May 6, 2009, the principal amount up to 300 million won up to May 26, 2009 to Defendant 1, the victim recovered to Defendant 2005.

2) Further, according to each of the above evidence: ① the victim was 1,64,502, and 120 won in total, although it is confirmed that the victim transferred money from May 19, 200 to May 21, 2009 to the account under the name of the non-indicted 12. According to the empirical rule, the victim was 1,64,50,000 won in total to the non-indicted 1,50,000 won in his/her or his/her account, and the victim was 5,000 won in 70,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in 10,000 won in 20,000 won in 20,000 won in .

3) Considering the above circumstances, Defendant 1 is deemed to have agreed to assume the Defendant’s obligation of borrowing at least KRW 1,64,502,120 as stated in the judgment at least, and have never been able to repay the said obligation. In such a situation, Defendant 1 is deemed to have agreed to dispose of each real estate as indicated in the judgment with the victim to repay the obligation of borrowing money. Accordingly, Defendant 1 is sufficiently recognized as motive or incentive to kill the victim and recover each real estate as indicated in the judgment.

3. At the time of the instant case, the Defendants’ act was committed.

위 각 증거에 의하면, ① 피고인 2는 2009. 5. 22. 02:40경 서울 강서구 화곡동 복개천 부근에서 공소외 7을 불러 그의 택시를 타고 새벽 03:20경 판시 ○○○모텔로 갔고, 당시 택시요금이 약 27,000원이 나왔으나 피고인 2는 가지고 있는 돈이 2만 원 밖에 없다면서 공소외 7에게 2만 원만 주었던 점, ② 피고인 2는 ○○○모텔에서 피고인 1을 만났다가 같은 날 09:10경 공소외 7에게 전화하여 그날 볼일이 많다면서 10만 원을 주기로 하고 ○○○모텔에서 나와 공소외 7이 운전하는 택시에 다시 탑승하였던 점, ③ 피고인 2는 택시 안에서 주머니에 있던 돈을 꺼내어 세면서 ‘이 새끼, 10만 원짜린 줄 알았는데 50만 원짜리네’라는 취지로 말하였고, 당시 피고인 2가 소지하고 있던 금원은 50만 원권 수표 1장을 포함하여 약 130만 원정도 되었는데 50만 원권 수표 1장은 피고인 1이 2009. 5. 21. 은행에서 인출한 것이며, 피고인 2는 공소외 7에게 130만 원 중 10만 원을 택시요금으로 건네 주었던 점(이와 관련하여 피고인들은 피고인 2가 피고인 1의 돈 약 130만 원을 훔친 것이라고 주장하지만 믿을 수 없고, 피고인 1이 교부한 것으로 판단된다), ④ 이후 피고인 2는 공소외 7과 함께 차량을 렌트하려고 돌아 다녔고, 그 과정에서 공소외 7이 피고인 2에게 ‘며칠 기다렸다가 마음에 드는 차로 빌리면 어떻겠냐’고 제안하였으나 피고인 2는 그날 꼭 빌려야 한다고 말하였으며, 결국 같은 날 14:00경 ◇◇렌트카와 연락이 되어 판시 토스카 차량을 2009. 6. 21.까지 1달간 렌트하기로 하고 위 50만 원권 수표를 포함한 70만 원을 렌트비로 지급하였던 점(이와 관련하여 피고인들은 피고인 2가 현충일인 2009. 6. 6.에 사용하려고 미리 렌트한 것이라고 주장하지만, 현충일에 사용하려고 그 전후 약 보름 동안을 더 렌트하여 렌트비를 지불할 아무런 이유가 없다는 점 등에서, 피고인들의 주장은 믿을 수 없다), ⑤ 피고인 2는 토스카차량을 운전하여 무주방면으로 출발하여 2009. 5. 22. 17:12경 서울요금소를 통과하고 19:24경 무주요금소를 통과하였고, 한편 피고인 1 또한 피해자를 태운 채 벤츠차량을 운전하여 무주방면으로 출발하여 2009. 5. 22. 18:22경 동서울요금소를 통과하고 21:17경 무주톨케이트를 통과하였으며(이는 톨게이트에 설치된 CCTV를 통해 확인된다), 그 과정에서 피고인들은 여러 차례 서로 통화하였던 점, ⑥ 피고인 2는 20:30경 먼저 이 사건 빈집에 도착하였고, 피고인 1은 22:00경 피해자를 태운 채 이 사건 빈집에 도착하여 피고인 2를 만난 점(이와 관련하여 피고인 1은 24:00경이 다 되어서 이 사건 빈집에 도착하였다고 주장하나, 무주톨게이트로부터 이 사건 빈집까지는 늦어도 30분이면 갈 수 있는 거리라고 인정되고, 피고인 2의 진술에 의하더라도 피고인 1이 도착한 시간은 22:00경이라는 것인 점 등을 고려할 때, 피고인 1은 늦어도 22:00경에는 이 사건 빈집에 도착한 것으로 판단된다), ⑦ 피고인들 및 피해자가 무주에 도착할 무렵 세 사람의 휴대전화 전원이 꺼진 점, ⑧ 피고인 1이 운전하는 벤츠차량과 피고인 2가 운전하는 토스카차량은 2009. 5. 23. 02:49경 무주-영동간 19번 국도를 무주에서 영동방면으로 순서대로 1초 간격으로 지나간 점, ⑨ 피고인들은 충북 영동군 학산면 압치리에 있는 압치마을회관 앞 쉼터에 이르러 정차한 뒤 벤츠차량은 주차시키고 토스카차량에 함께 탑승하여 2009. 5. 23. 02:58경 무주-영동간 19번 국도를 영동에서 무주방면으로 진행하였던 점, ⑩ 피고인 2는 약 1시간이 지난 2009. 5. 23. 03:54경 피고인 1을 벤츠차량이 있는 곳으로 다시 데려다 준 뒤, 혼자서 토스카차량을 운전하여 무주-영동간 19번 국도를 영동에서 무주방면으로 진행하였고, 한편 피고인 1은 04:31경 부산으로 가기 위해 황간톨게이트에 진입하였던 점, ⑪ 피고인 2는 피고인 1로부터 공소외 9, 8의 집 주소 등을 전해 듣고, 2009. 5. 23. 04:00경 공소외 9의 집에 찾아 가 공소외 9에게 포크레인 작업을 부탁하였으나 거절당하였고, 이후 05:16경부터 05:45경까지 사이에 8차례에 걸쳐 피고인 1에게 전화하였으나 전원이 꺼져 있어 통화가 되지 않자 06:20경 피고인 1에게 ‘ 공소외 9가 안 된다고 해서 내가 처리하고 간다’는 내용의 문자메시지를 보냈으며, 06:40경 공소외 8의 집에 찾아 가 포크레인 작업을 부탁하여 판시 제2항 기재와 같이 피해자의 사체를 매장하였던 점(이와 관련하여 피고인들은 피고인 2가 혼자 알아서 공소외 9, 8을 찾아 간 것처럼 주장하지만, 공소외 9, 8은 피고인 2와는 별로 친분이 없고 피고인 1과 친분이 있는 사람이고, 공소외 8의 진술에 의하면 공소외 8은 피고인 2에게 집 주소를 가르쳐 준 적이 없는 반면 피고인 1은 예전에 집 근처에 찾아온 적이 있다는 것이며, 피고인 2가 피고인 1에게 위와 같은 내용의 문자를 보낸 점 등을 고려할 때, 피고인 2는 피고인 1로부터 공소외 9, 8의 주소 등을 전해 들은 것으로 판단된다) 등이 인정된다.

4. Other circumstances.

In addition, according to the above evidence, the victim appeared to have been aware of the fact on May 2, 200 with the non-indicted 16, and the victim told that he would have been able to receive money. ② The victim argued that the victim would have come to the ground trading problem with the defendant 2 first, but there is no reason to discuss about the sale of real estate with the non-indicted 2, and there is no reason to see that the victim would have come to the non-indicted 1's life because the victim would not have come to know about the fact that he would have come to know about the fact that he would have come to know about the non-indicted 1's life because the victim would not have come to know about the fact that he would have come to know about the non-indicted 2's whereabouts, ④ The victim would not have come to know about the fact that the victim would have come to know about the non-indicted 1's whereabouts since he would have come to know about the fact that he would have come to know about the non-indicted 1's whereabouts.

5. Determination

As seen above, in full view of Defendant 1’s motive for murder, Defendants’ criminal conduct, and other circumstances, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim and abandon the victim’s body as stated in the judgment for the purpose of evading Defendant 1’s obligation to the victim. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is rejected.

① The Defendants’ crime of this case is one of the most important values, and the result is very important. ② Defendant 1 borrowed the money close to the victim’s entire property from the victim in a manner close to deception, and murdered the victim for the purpose of evading his/her obligation and providing the real estate as security. It is particularly required to criticize the motive for the crime. ③ The Defendants, as they would be able to repay the obligation to the victims of this case, had the victims of this case moved into the vacant house of this case, used the vehicle in advance, allowed the victims to take alcohol, and take measures to prevent the victim from leaving a trace of blood. After murdering the victim, the Defendants abandoned the body of the victim by packaging it is almost impossible to find out by using crums, and the body of the victim’s body and the part of the real estate offered as security, etc. are removed from the victim’s whole property in a way close to deception, and then, murdered the victim to the extent that it is not consistent with the law of criminal investigation and punishment of the victim.

Judges Cho Young-hun (Presiding Judge)