[1] The method of finding guilty in a case without any direct evidence such as witness's statement

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the charge of murdering on the ground that the possibility of death of the victim was not caused by the defendant's intentional murder but by contingent accident is not ruled out without a reasonable doubt

[1] In a case where no direct evidence, such as witness’s statement, exists, the defendant may be found guilty only when the facts charged can be inferred beyond reasonable doubt by applying logical rules and empirical rules to indirect facts acknowledged by legitimate evidence.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of murdering charges on the ground that the possibility of death of the victim was not caused by the defendant's intentional murder but by contingent accident is not ruled out without reasonable doubt

[1] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 250 of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do3327 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 133), Supreme Court Decision 94Do135 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2695), Supreme Court Decision 95Do535 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2146), Supreme Court Decision 97Do974 delivered on July 25, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 2754), Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783 delivered on November 13, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2908), Supreme Court Decision 29Do3979 delivered on October 29, 299 (Gong199Ha, 294)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Seoul High Court Decision 99No1956 delivered on November 10, 1999

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

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

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendant frequently fightd with the victim who is the husband at ordinary times. At around 01:20 on March 12, 1999, the Defendant: (a) in the inside room of the Gula House operated in his residence on March 12, 1999, in order to kill the victim by breaking the knife with the victim; (b) knife the knife on the entrance; and (c) knife the knife on the part of the victim’s left chest at one time and killed the victim by having the victim die with the heart.

2. Defendant's assertion;

From the prosecution to the court below, the defendant continued to fight against the defendant and the victim often needs knife while fighting with the defendant. At the time of this case, the defendant knife the knife in front of the defect intending to leave out of the end of the dispute with the victim, and knife the defendant with the left hand, knife the defendant's body while carrying the defendant's right shoulder, and knife the defendant's body before knife the back, and the defendant knife the defendant's knife without the defendant's knife's knife. The defendant knife the victim's right part while knife the defendant's right part, and so the victim did not knife the defendant's knife's knife and knife the defendant's knife's knife.

3. The judgment of the court below

In light of the evidence revealed by the court below, if the victim intentionally dies from the victim's knife of knife and knife without using the third party's actions on the left knife and the victim died from the knife, the victim knife had knife and knife at the time of threatening the defendant, and the victim knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

4. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. First of all, direct evidence consistent with the facts charged that the defendant intentionally killed the victim in knife, it appears that the defendant's statement among the suspect interrogation records prepared by the judicial police assistant stated that the defendant made partial confession of the facts charged, and that "after the accident, at the hospital that sent the victim immediately after the accident, the defendant died in knife" means that "the defendant died in knife to the largest part of the facts charged," the highest part of the defendant's statement at the prosecution, the highest part of the knife, the highest part of the defendant's statement at the prosecution, the highest part of the defendant's testimony at the court of first instance, and the statement at the court of first instance that "at the time when the defendant was first examined by the police, it appears that "at the time of the defendant's testimony at the police assistant's first time" means that "at the time of the defendant's testimony and the fact that the defendant died in knife't have any admissibility of evidence in light of the above facts that the defendant's statement at the police bar and its last part of evidence.

However, in a case without any direct evidence, such as a witness’s statement, it is a major principle of criminal procedure to find the Defendant guilty only when the facts charged can be inferred to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by applying the logical rule and the empirical rule to the indirect facts recognized by legitimate evidence. Thus, in the instant case, the possibility of suicide of the victim or the possibility of the victim’s death by suffering from the same injury as the facts charged should be ruled out without reasonable doubt. Thus, it should be presumed that the victim’s death was caused by the Defendant’s act with a knife, and it cannot be seen that the victim’s death was eventually caused by the Defendant’s act.

In light of the case, the part of the judgment of the court below that excluded the possibility of suicide of the victim is sufficiently acceptable. Furthermore, according to the evidence adopted through legitimate evidence examination, the victim was facing each other at the time of threatening the defendant. When the victim knife with the knife, the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife toward the knife, and the victim's left side knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

However, based on the above facts, the court below excluded the possibility of any contingent accident as above on the ground that if the victim knife the knife and knife the knife knife knife the knife knife knife the knife knife, the knife knife knife knife knife with other external objects, such as the back knife knife against the back knife, or the defendant knife the knife from the victim while gnife the victim's left hand knife the knife knife knife knife knife the victim's right part, not only the kn

왜냐하면 원심이 지지증거로 인용한 국립과학수사연구소장 작성의 사실조회회보서에는 그와 같은 판단을 지지할 만한 아무런 기재도 없는 반면, 오히려 함께 지지증거로 인용한 서울대학교 의과대학 법의학교실 이윤성 작성의 사실조회회보서는, "피해자의 치명적인 자창은 칼이 갈비뼈나 물렁뼈를 다치지 않고 순전히 근육만을 자르고 들어감으로써 특별히 인체조직의 저항이 없었을 것으로 보여지므로 칼을 빼는 행위도 특별한 힘이 필요하지 않았을 것으로 보여져서 당시 피해자가 칼을 손에 쥐고 있었다면 자창 직후 스스로 칼을 뺐을 수도 있으며, 타살의 가능성을 완전히 배제할 수는 없으나, 이 사건과 같이 피해자가 피고인과 서로 실랑이를 하던 중 칼에 찔리는 상황이 현실에서 드물지 않고, 피고인이 피해자와 마주서서 피해자를 칼로 찔렀다면 자창의 방향이 아래로 향하여야 할 것인데도 이 사건에서 자창의 방향이 거의 수평이라는 점과 피해자가 정상적인 건강상태여서 비록 짧은 시간이기는 하지만 찔린 뒤라도 행동이 전혀 불가능하지는 않는데도 자신보다 약한 피고인으로부터 공격을 받았으면서도 그 신체에 아무런 방어손상이 없다는 점 등에서 오히려 일반적인 타살과는 다르므로, 결론적으로 이 사건은 피해자와 피고인이 서로 실랑이를 하던 도중에 우발적으로 일어난 사고로 인한 것일 가능성도 있다."는 취지로 되어 있을 뿐이고, 그 밖에 우발적인 사고로 인한 가능성을 배제할 만한 자료는 찾아볼 수 없으므로, 이 사건에서 피해자의 사망이 피고인의 고의에 의한 살해행위가 아닌 우발적인 사고로 인한 것일 가능성도 엄연히 존재한다고 할 수 있고, 그와 같은 가능성이 합리적인 의심 없이 배제되지 않는 이상 피고인이 피해자를 칼로 찔러서 살해하였다는 사실 또한 합리적인 의심이 없을 정도로 증명되었다고 볼 수 없음이 분명하기 때문이다.

Therefore, although there is no evidence to support the facts charged in this case that the defendant intentionally killed the victim with knife, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged merely on the ground that there is no possibility that the victim could commit suicide or have died due to any contingent accident, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)