[1] Whether the “current location” under Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating territorial jurisdiction includes “current location by unlawful coercion” (negative)

[2] The case holding that the defendants were detained in the Republic of Korea by lawful arrest, immediate delivery, and lawful detention, and thus, the domestic court located at the present location where the defendant was detained in the Republic of Korea, in case where: (a) arrested the ship operated by the marine transportation company Gap of the Republic of Korea on the high seas near the Indian Sea north of the Indian Ocean and detained the crew of the Republic of Korea to commit an attempted murder during marine robbery, etc.; and (b) arrested the ship and detained and prosecuted the ship into Korea

[3] The case holding that the Criminal Act and the Act on Punishment, etc. of Damaging Ships and Maritime Structures of the Republic of Korea apply to the above case in case where Defendants were arrested, transported, and charged with committing an attempted murder during the commission of marine robbery, etc. on the high seas of the Republic of Korea Gap, operated by the Republic of Korea marine transportation company Gap on the waters near the Indian Sea north of the Indian Sea of the Indian Ocean, the Republic of Korea's "Criminal Act" and "

[4] The elements for the establishment of the conspiracy relationship in the co-principal

[5] In a case where Defendants et al. were arrested a ship operated by the Republic of Korea marine transportation company Gap on the high seas near the Indian Ocean north of the Indian Ocean and were prosecuted for committing an attempted murder at sea robbery, etc. on the Republic of Korea citizen crew members, the case holding that the Defendants' co-principals committed some of the charges and co-principals on the charges

[6] In case where Defendants, etc. were arrested a ship operated by the Republic of Korea marine transportation company Gap on the high seas near the Indian Ocean north of the Indian Ocean, and were prosecuted for committing an attempted murder during marine robbery, etc. on the ROK citizen crew, including captain Eul, etc. on the ROK citizen crew, the case holding that the remaining Defendants, except Defendant Byung who committed a total attack upon personal retaliation, were acquitted of each charges, such as attempted murder during marine robbery against Eul, on the grounds that there is insufficient reason to acknowledge that the remaining Defendants, except Defendant Byung who conspired to murder upon Eul as a personal retaliation, conspired to murder Eul, etc.

[1] Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The territorial jurisdiction shall be the place of crime, the domicile, the domicile, or the present location of the defendant." Here, "the present location" refers to the place where the defendant is present at the time of prosecution, and includes the present location by force, but does not include the present location by force.

[2] The case holding that, in case where the Defendants were arrested, arrested, and detained and indicted in the Republic of Korea on the ground that the ROK marine transportation company Gap, operated on the high seas near the Indian Sea north of India, committed an attempted murder at sea on the ROK citizen crew, etc. on the ground that they committed an act of marine robbery, etc. on the ROK citizen crew, the Republic of Korea may exercise jurisdiction over the nationals of the Republic of Korea outside the territory of the Republic of Korea pursuant to Article 6 of the Korean Criminal Act and Article 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Convention No. 1328 of Nov. 16, 1994) of the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea may arrest and exercise jurisdiction over the defendants Gap et al. from the territory of the Republic of Korea outside the territory of the Republic of Korea pursuant to the Korean Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants' arrest of the military personnel Gap et al., who were detained within the territory of the Republic of Korea constitutes a lawful domestic detention warrant under Article 213 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the defendants were also detained or detained within the Republic of Korea without any justifiable reason.

[3] The case holding that in case where the Defendants were arrested, transported, and charged with committing an attempted murder at sea on the high seas near the Indian Sea north of the Indian Ocean and the ROK citizen crew, etc. on the ship operated by the ROK marine transportation company Gap on the ground of the high seas near the Indian Sea, the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea applies pursuant to Article 6 of the Criminal Act since the Defendants committed a crime on the Republic of Korea citizen, and as long as the present location of the Defendants by lawful enforcement is “in the territory of the Republic of Korea,” the Act on Punishment, etc. of Damaging Ships applies pursuant to Article 3 subparagraph 3 of the Act on Punishment, etc. for Damaging Ships and Sea Structures (hereinafter “the Act on Punishment, etc. of Damaging Ships”).

[4] In the relation of accomplices who are co-processed with two or more crimes, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but only two or more persons intend to jointly process and realize the crime. Even if there was no overall conspiracy, if the combination of intentions is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct participation in the conduct, the person who did not participate in the conduct is criminal liability as a co-principal for the other co-principal.

[5] In a case where Defendants et al. were arrested, transported, and charged with committing an attempted murder at sea on the high seas near the Indian Ocean north of the Indian Ocean and committing an act of marine robbery on the ROK citizen crew members, etc. on the ROK citizen crew in collusion with the Defendants, the case holding that the Defendants co-principal committed some of the charges against the Defendants in light of all the circumstances, such as the division of roles and direction system, the Defendants’ motive and purpose of the commission of the Defendants, the Defendants’ motive and purpose of the commission of the Defendants, the circumstances leading the Defendants, etc. to resist the crew members of the Maritime Unit in the Maritime Team in the Republic of Korea,

[6] Where Defendants, etc. were arrested a ship operated by the Korean marine transportation company Gap in the high seas near the Indian Ocean north of the Indian Ocean and charged with committing an attempted murder at sea, etc. on the ROK citizen crew including captain Eul, etc. on charges of committing an attempted murder at sea, the case affirmed the remaining Defendants' attempted murder at sea, etc. on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone, except the Defendant Byung who conspired to kill Eul as a personal retaliation, was not sufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants conspired to murder the captain Eul on the part of the other Defendants, on the ground that there were difficulties in achieving the original purpose, such as kidnapping of the vessel, forced navigation to Bomaria, and the request for the release of hostage, etc.

[1] Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Article 6 of the Criminal Act; Articles 105 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea; Articles 4(1), 200-2(5), 212, 213, and 213-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 6 of the Criminal Act; Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Act on the Punishment, etc. of Damaging Ships and Maritime Structures / [4] Article 30 of the Criminal Act / [5] Articles 25, 30, 136(1) and (2), 36, 337, 338, 340(1) and (2), 340(2), 340(3), (3), and 42 of the Criminal Act; Article 36(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30(3) of the Act on the Punishment of Ships and Maritime Structures

[4] Supreme Court Decision 98Do30 delivered on March 27, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 1261) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8507 Delivered on January 26, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 374) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8645 Delivered on February 23, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 537) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do198 Delivered on May 8, 2008

Defendant 1 and three others

Kim Dong-dong et al.

Attorneys Don-san et al.

1. Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life, imprisonment for 15 years, and imprisonment for 3 and 4 years, respectively;

2. Two blades (Evidence 1 of the seizure list as of January 30, 201), X-bends (Evidence 2 of the same seizure list), one reciting (Evidence 3 of the same seizure list), one girree (Evidence 4 of the same seizure list), one stree (Evidence 5 of the same seizure list), one stref (Evidence 6 of the same seizure list), one stref (Evidence 7 of the same seizure list), one 1 stref (Evidence 7 of the same seizure list), one 1 3 stref (Evidence 7 of the same seizure list), one Rabbband 1 (Evidence 8 of the same seizure list), one 13 streflor 2, one 10 stre of the new seizure list (Evidence 9 of the same seizure list x 10 2,10 stre of the old seizure list, one 10 streflor 2,10 st of the new seizure list;

3. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 were acquitted on January 21, 201, as to the attempted murder during the commission of force against the victim Nonindicted 2 on January 21, 201, and attempted murder during robbery, attempted murder during robbery, and violation of the Act on Punishment for Damaging Ships and Sea Structures (Attempted Murder during Seizure, etc.).

Judgment on territorial jurisdiction

1. Summary of Defendant 4’s defense counsel’s assertion

A. Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides for the freedom of the people's physical freedom and the legal principle of due process, prohibition of adviser, warrant requirement, and right to assistance of counsel. The Defendants were transferred to the Republic of Korea without any basis for the warrant after arrest. The Defendants did not have been arrested on the basis of the warrant, and the ex post facto warrant was not issued for a considerable period of time to be transferred to the Republic of Korea, and the Defendants did not receive any assistance of counsel, and there was no due process such as being detained in the toilet during the course of arrest by the Navy of the Republic of Korea. During the arrest process, ○○○○○○ Family Seafarers committed assault against the Defendants, but the Defendants were also allowed by the Republic of Korea military personnel.

B. Therefore, Busan, which is the present location of the defendants, is illegal enforcement against due process, and there is no territorial jurisdiction over Busan District Court.

2. Determination

A. The ground for territorial jurisdiction

Article 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "The territorial jurisdiction shall be the place of crime, the domicile, the place of residence, or the present location of the defendant at the time of prosecution." The present location refers to the place where the defendant is present at the time of prosecution, and includes the present location by force, but it is reasonable to deem that the present location by force does not include the present location by force. It is examined whether the defendants are located in Busan, which is the present location

B. Whether the arrest of the Defendants is lawful

형법 제6조 는 “본법은 대한민국 영역 외에서 대한민국 또는 대한민국 국민에 대하여 전조에 기재한 이외의 죄를 범한 외국인에게 적용한다. 단 행위지의 법률에 의하여 범죄를 구성하지 아니하거나 소추 또는 형의 집행을 면제할 경우에는 예외로 한다.”고 규정하고 있고, 「해양법에 관한 국제연합 협약(United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea)」(1994. 11. 16. 조약 제1328호로 발효)은 제105조에서 “모든 국가는 공해 또는 국가 관할권 밖의 어떠한 곳에서라도, … 해적행위에 의하여 탈취되어 해적의 지배하에 있는 선박·항공기를 나포하고, 그 선박과 항공기 내에 있는 사람을 체포 … 할 수 있다. 나포를 행한 국가의 법원은 부과될 형벌을 결정하며, …(On the high seas, or in any other place outside the jurisdiction of any State, every State may seize … a ship or aircraft taken by piracy and under the control of pirates, and arrest the persons … on board. The courts of the State which carried out the seizure may decide upon the penalties to be imposed, …)”라고 규정하고 있는바, 형법 및 해양법에 관한 국제연합 협약 등에 의하여, 대한민국은 대한민국 영역 외에서 대한민국 국민에 대하여 해적행위를 한 사람들을 체포하여 재판권을 행사할 수 있다 할 것이고, 그 체포의 절차나 의미, 수사기관에의 인도 방법 등에 관하여는 별도의 규정이 없으므로 대한민국 형사소송법을 적용함이 타당하다고 할 것이다. 이 사건에서 피고인들을 체포한 사람들은 대한민국 해군 □□부대 소속 군인들인바, 위 군인들은 형사소송법상 “검사나 사법경찰관리”에 해당하지 아니함이 명백하므로, 위 군인들이 피고인들을 체포한 것은 형사소송법 제213조 의 “검사 또는 사법경찰관리 아닌 자가 현행범인을 체포한 때”(이른바 ‘사인에 의한 현행범 체포’)에 해당한다.

Meanwhile, Article 213(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "When a person who is not a prosecutor or a judicial police officer arrests a flagrant offender, he/she shall immediately deliver it to a prosecutor or a judicial police officer." Here, "Immediate time" means that the person does not delay delivery or continuous arrest without any justifiable reason. While the △ Unit was arrested, he/she tried to hand over the Defendants to an adjacent country, such as Oba, etc. while being isolated from ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the neighboring countries decided to hand them over to the Republic of Korea following the refusal to accept the Defendants' new illness. While the arrangement of flight to hand them to the Republic of Korea was not taken place, he/she transferred the Defendants to Busan Kim Maritime Airport with the cooperation of the United Nations of America, and there is a publicly known fact that he/she delivered the Defendants' new illness to a police officer belonging to the South Maritime Police Agency, and according to the above facts, the demand for delivery of the Defendants to the Republic of Korea after arresting the Defendants cannot be deemed to have been delayed or delayed without justifiable reasons.

In addition, due process has not been observed, such as being detained in toilets by the Navy of the Republic of Korea during the course of arrest, and there is no objective evidence to prove that ○○○○ Family crew members committed assault against the Defendants, but the Republic of Korea military personnel allowed it.

Therefore, the arrest of the Defendants by the military personnel belonging to △ Military would be lawful.

C. Whether the Defendants’ detention is lawful

According to Articles 213-2 and 200-2(5) of the Criminal Procedure Act, when intending to detain a flagrant offender arrested by a private person, a detention warrant shall be requested within 48 hours. The time to determine whether to request a warrant by an investigation agency according to the time of delivery by a private person shall not depend on the time of delivery by the private person. In particular, in light of the fact that there may be cases where 48 hours or more from the time of arrest to the investigation agency as in this case, the starting point of the above 48 hours should be deemed to be the time when the investigation agency takes delivery of a flagrant offender, and the right to receive counsel

On January 29, 201, before the Defendants arrive in the Republic of Korea, the Busan District Court issued a arrest warrant to interrogate the Defendants on January 29, 201, and around 04:30 on January 30, 201, the Defendants, who arrive in the Republic of Korea on January 30, 201, were transferred to Busan District Court on the basis of the above warrant, and were arrested by a detention warrant issued on January 10:40 on January 30, 201, after receiving the counsel’s assistance on January 30, 201. The facts that the Defendants were arrested by a detention warrant issued on January 30, 201 are clear in the record. The Defendants were detained by a detention warrant issued on request within 48 hours from the time they were delivered to the investigation agency and received the counsel’s assistance in the process. Thus, the Defendants’ detention is also lawful.

D. Territorial jurisdiction

Thus, as seen above, the defendants are detained in Busan detention center by lawful arrest, immediate delivery, and lawful detention, not by illegal arrest or detention, as seen above. Thus, according to Article 4 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendants have territorial jurisdiction over this case in this court.

1. Personal information of the Defendants

On December 21, 2010, the Defendants were dead by the Navy on December 21, 201, 13 (hereinafter “the instant piracy”), including Non-Indicted 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48 (the name of Non-Indicted 41, 42, 43, 45, 47, and 48 (the name of Non-Indicted 46, 48) and Co-Indicted 5 (the address at the address of the first instance trial). 8 piracy except the Defendants and Non-Indicted 5 of the first instance trial, were killed by the Navy on January 21, 201. hereinafter “the piracy affected by this case”) have been living in the territory of the Republic of Korea from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea, leading the vessel to the piracy’s piracy and the vessel to the piracy’s piracy’s piracy and the vessel to the piracy’s piracy.

2. Public offering relationship;

A. Roles

(i) second and wharfs;

Non-Indicted 41 has a history of kidnapping a ship several times from the Republic of Korea to the Republic of Korea in the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea.

Non-Indicted 42 plays a pivotal role, such as disseminating instructions from Non-Indicted 41 and spreading them to other piracys, operating high speed boats so that they can move to a ship promptly, and monitoring whether there is a warship or helicopter approaching the crew of a ship kidnapped with an armed riot, and monitoring whether there is a warship or helicopter approaching the ship for piracy.

2) Other piracy.

In order to receive the price for hostage release, the remaining piracy of this case, except for the above two sub-sections and wharfs, was on board a ship to be caught with an armed rioted when discovering a ship to be caught in accordance with the direction of the two sub-sections and wharfs and the decision-making of the fee, and took charge of monitoring whether there is an external force approaching the crew of the kidnapped ship to monitor and piracy, and among them, Co-defendant 5 of the first instance trial was in charge of preparing meals for piracy, Defendant 2 was in charge of the preparation of piracy interpretation, and Defendant 3 was in charge of the use of communications equipment installed on the ship to communicate with the outside.

(b) Details of public offering;

On December 22, 2010, the piracy, including the Defendants, demanded the release of seafarers by force using a ship sailing in the Araba sea area, and the crew members of the kidnapped ship do not comply with the directions of the piracy, or do not follow or flee the directions of the piracy, in cases where the crew members of the kidnapped ship do not follow the directions of the piracy and do not pay for the release of human nature, and where there are repeated attempts by external force, and where the crew members of the ship do so in the course of their boarding and unloading from the port to the port to the port to the port to the port to the port of AK-63 small guns, 1, 5, 4, 400 small guns, AK-63 small guns, 4,000 small guns, 4,000,000 for the purpose of training, etc. to achieve the original purpose of training, etc., and where there is any piracy or suppression in the course of training, etc., to the extent to which the crew will die.

3. Criminal facts;

(a) Demotion of ships;

B. Nonindicted 41 had the captain of the instant mother vessel navigated to the sea area where navigation of a foreign merchant boat is frequent. On January 13, 2011, the piracy of the instant case discovered that: (a) around January 15, 2011, the piracy of the instant mother vessel arrived at the neighboring sea area of the Indian Ocean; and (b) on the high seas, at the port of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea at the sea of the Republic of Korea (22 degrees North latitude and 64 degrees East longitude) located in the Republic of Korea of Norway, located in the Republic of Korea of Norway (GS1); and (c) ○○○○○○○ (11,566 tons of gross tonnage, 16 tons) of the vessel charter of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 1.

At around 07:47 on January 15, 201, the piracys of this case, including the Defendants, were loaded on the mother line of this case from ○○○○○○○○○○, in accordance with a prior plan. The Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 41, 44, and 43, was on board the mother line of this case. Defendant 1, along with Nonindicted 41, 47, AK-47, and AK-63 small guns, carried weapons, and accessed the above high speed boats driven by Nonindicted 42 at the wharf, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, using a bridge prepared in advance, and the remaining Defendants were on board the mother line of this case with carrying a weapon from the mother line of this case, and on the order of ○○○○○○, using the mother line of this case.

During that process, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 3, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 13 (SAS), Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 2, and Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 45 (SAS) were on board a vessel (S).

The Defendants, along with the piracy of the instant case, led the Defendants to l○○○○ Family Head and ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Family Head by making the said crew aground for the head, leading the said crew to the steering house, monitoring the crew, etc., and put the said crew on the steering house, etc.

(b) The taking of property inside a ship;

The piracys, including the Defendants, were evacuated by the crew members of ○○○○○○○○, as described in the above A., and the crew members of the instant mother ship were found together with the crew members of the instant mother ship, and were intruded into the said bed by 7 shootings and breaking off the entrance doors of the victim Nonindicted 4 of the Republic of Korea on the third floor of the bhead of the instant mother ship, and breaking the entrance doors into the said bed: (a) one computer with a total amount of KRW 986,200, and one cash amount of KRW 1,940,000, the victim’s total amount of KRW 2,926,200, as described in the attached Form [crime List]; and (b) took the property amounting to KRW 13,819,200, as described in the attached Form [Attachment List].

(c) Compulsory navigation;

The piracy, including the Defendants, took the ○○○○○○○, as described in the above A., and shown the attitude that 21 seafarers, including Nonindicted Party 2, including the captain, were able to kill and kill the ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and forced the captain, etc., to navigate from January 21, 201 to January 21, 201, 04:58.

(d) Request for release of hostage;

At around 18:55 on January 15, 201, one of the piracy of the instant case, when Nonindicted 42 and other piracys are observed, the captain, Nonindicted 2, using a satellite telephone installed in the steering house, let Nonindicted 2 walk the phone to the victim office located in the central Dong-dong, Busan, Jung-gu, Busan, and then, the employees of the said company, notified the purport that “the ship will be submaria piracy. The ship will prepare money.” The captain, upon receipt of a request for the cost for the release of the ship and its crew, notified the captain of the collision to the effect that “the ship will be submaria piracy..................) and demanded for the release of hostages from January 21, 201 to January 21, 2011.

(e) Shooting for soldiers;

At around 14:51 on January 18, 201, the piracy including the Defendants: (a) discovered a Mongolian vessel sailing on the high seas on the north 778 Era card, north 778 miles; and (b) brought the said vessel to be additionally arrested; (c) Defendant 2, while carrying Nonindicted 43, 44, etc. with the wharf AK-47 small guns, was approaching the said high-speed boats driven by Nonindicted 42, and was approaching the said Mongolian vessel on board on January 18, 201; (d) around 15:14 on January 18, 201, in order to support the safe operation of the Korean vessel and to ensure international maritime safety, etc., the instant vessels were exposed to a threat from the Maritime Police Team affiliated with the Maritime unit, which was performing maritime security operations, and had been abandoned to the ○○○○○○ 300-K (hereinafter referred to as “○○”).

On January 18, 2011, the Defendants, including the instant Defendants, reported on around 15:35, 201 to rescue the crew of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○, two LIB boats affiliated with the pertinent sprinkler helicopter to ○○○○○○○. The instant naval units, including the Defendants, set up a wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing and Bring wing wing wing wing wing Sheet to prevent the instant wing wing 41 from attacking their lives. In order to kill the military personnel belonging to △○○○○○, Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 4, and Nonindicted Party 4, etc., tried to give treatment of Nonindicted Party 5’s wing wing wing wing 2, etc., Nonindicted Party 2, Nonindicted Party 1, Nonindicted Party 2, and Defendant 4, etc., to commit an attempted 3 Nonindicted Party 2, 1, wing 3.

F. Violence and intimidation against seafarers and injury to Nonindicted 3

The Defendants and the instant piracy, including the Defendants, thought that Korean seafarers intentionally proceed to 10 times or stop their engines without complying with their instructions, and they were very high to not provide meals to seafarers. Nonindicted 42, on January 19, 201, around 06:00, when other piracys were kept, Nonindicted 2’s captain and Nonindicted 2 were to return to the steering boat, and return to the front line and to the front line to the front time of arrival of Nonindicted 3’s equipment, such as booming the 1string, so that the crew would not break out the 1string of Non-Indicted 4 with Non-Indicted 2, etc. with Non-Indicted 8’s string, so that the crew would break up the 1string of Non-Indicted 2, which was used on the floor, and could not be able to kill Non-Indicted 3 with Non-Indicted 8’s captain, who would be able to break up the 8th head of the Organization without being able to kill the 8thring.

G. The use of “humanideide” for seafarers

The Defendants, including the Defendants, conspired on January 21, 201 to use the piracy in the so-called “human bomb box,” and, on January 21, 201, around 04:58, the victim 2, 3, 10, 4 et al. detained in the steering house on the ground of the 670 string of the Ga card, with a view to preventing scambling from being scamd from being scamed from being scamed by scambling from being on the ground of the 670 string of the Ga card, and to prevent the scambling unit from attacking scambling from being scambling from being scambling from being scambling. However, one of the piracys in the instant case did not intend to kill the victims by being scam on the floor of the victims.

H. The captain’s shooting on Nonindicted 2

피고인 1은 2011. 1. 21. 위 사.항 기재와 같이 해군의 2차 구출작전으로 본래 이 사건 해적들의 계획이 무산되고 자신의 생존 여부도 장담할 수 없는 위기에 처하게 된 것이 피해자 공소외 2 때문이라고 생각하고 피해자를 살해할 것을 마음먹은 후, 2011. 1. 21. 06:00경 UDT대원들의 조타실 진입 직전 조타실 내에서 “캡틴, 캡틴.”하며 피해자를 찾다가 우현 싱크대 옆에 선수 방향으로 머리를 향하여 엎드려 있던 피해자를 발견하고, 그를 살해하기 위하여 피해자의 왼쪽에서 소지하고 있던 AK소총으로 피해자를 향하여 여러 발의 총격을 가하였으나, 해군이 피고인 1이 있던 조타실을 향하여 사격을 가하자 도주하는 바람에 피해자에게 약 16주간의 치료를 요하는 다발성 총상으로 인한 쇼크 패혈증 등의 상해를 가하는 데 그침으로써 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그쳤다.

4. Conclusion

As a result, in collusion with Co-defendant 5 of the first instance trial and the murdered piracy of this case, the Defendants forcibly committed the above ship's forced ○○○○○○○○○○, took 13,819,20 Korean crew members of the Republic of Korea equivalent to the total amount of KRW 13,819,200, and forced the above Korean crew members to take custody of the above Korean crew members and use them as hostages for release, and forced the victim company to do so, and attempted to kill Non-Indicted 1, 24, and 25 of the victim, respectively, with dangerous articles at the same time as the victim's attempted murder, and thereby interfered with the above victims' legitimate performance of official duties, causing injury to each of the above victims, and caused injury to the victim Non-Indicted 3 for about four weeks, and attempted to kill the victim by using the so-called "non-Indicted 1, 24, and 4, respectively."

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness Nonindicted 7, 3, 6, and 10

1. The protocol of examination of the witness to Nonindicted 2 of this Court

1. The prosecutor’s statement concerning Nonindicted 26

1. Each police statement made on Nonindicted 1, 24, 8, 4, 9, 25, 27, 23, 20, 15, 12, 16, 19, 17, 18, 21, 11, 13, 22, and 14;

1. A copy of the statement made by the police against Nonindicted 29

1. A copy of each statement of Nonindicted 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36

1. A copy of a punishment paper for the captain;

1. A copy of the records of seizure and the list of seizure and the actual investigation report;

1. Medical certificate (non-indicted 1 and 24) and evidence to prove the degree of damage inflicted on the victim non-indicted 25

1. An investigation report (KBS Social ○○○○○○○○○ Operations), an investigation report (verification of the progress of discrimination in the U.S.), an investigation report (a life evidence, etc. used by a suspect, etc.), an investigation report (a life evidence, etc. used by a seafarer), an investigation report (a summary report of the damaged seaman), an investigation report (a summary report of the damaged seaman), and an investigation report (a statement, etc. on the side of Nonindicted Co. 5 Co. 5 Co. 5) attached thereto, and a nationality certificate, an international tonnage certificate, an international tonnage certificate, an advance payment certificate, a ship inspection certificate, a ship inspection certificate, ○○○○○○○’s crew register, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○’s insurance-related documents, e-mail printed materials (○○○○○○○○○○), an investigation report, an investigation report, an investigation report, and an appraisal report, an appraisal report attached thereto, and a diagnosis report attached thereto;

1. Two knife (Evidence 1 of the seizure list dated January 30, 201), X-bend (Evidence 2 of the same list), one reciting (Evidence 3 of the same list), one reciting (Evidence 4 of the same list), one perfore 1 (Evidence 5 of the same list), one siren 6 (Evidence 7 of the same list), one siren 1 (Evidence 7 of the same list), one Raberter 1 (Evidence 8 of the same list), one Rabbe 1 (Evidence 9 of the same list), 2 (Evidence 10 of the new list), 1 of the 2 (Evidence 4 of the current list), 1 of the 100 mare 1 (Evidence 6 of the same list), 1 of the 100 mare 2 (Evidence 14 of the current list), 1 of the 100 mar 2 (Evidence 14 of the same list), 1 of the 10 mar 2 (No 2 of the same list);

1. The existence of one (Evidence No. 16) of each single even singing door;

[Defendant 1]

1. Defendant 2, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 37, and 38’s each legal statement

1. Copy of the Nonindicted 39’s statement

1. A written appraisal of Nonindicted 38’s preparation

1. In the investigation report (as to the receipt of the victim’s intention to treat the victim’s non-indicted 2’s victim Nonindicted 2’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s victim’s identity), investigation report (as to Nonindicted 37 and Nonindicted 39’s Korean translation of the research report) attached to the investigation report (as to the investigation report on the Manman’s Medi, etc.’s identity) and accompanying each appraisal report attached thereto, each appraisal report attached thereto (2

1. English text of the diagnosis report (Med Report, January 22, 201), diagnosis report (Non-Indicted 2 Master), injury diagnosis report (Non-Indicted 2 Master), medical report (Med Report, January 28, 201), English text of the discharge report, non-Indicted 2 Master's health condition, medical examination report (Korean translation of the Report on Report as of January 22, 201), non-Indicted 2 Master's health condition, medical examination report (Korean translation of the Report on Report as of January 28, 201), Korean translation of the discharge report, non-Indicted 40's opinion as to non-Indicted 40.

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The defendant 1 and his defense counsel's arguments

In relation to the crime of the 3-e.(e)(the total attack against soldiers), (f)(b)(Assault and intimidation against seafarers), and (g)(use of the 'comfort' against seafarers), there was no conspiracy to kill soldiers and crew members, and the 3-h.(h)(the total attack against Non-Indicted 2) criminal facts of the judgment did not constitute a total attack against the captain Non-Indicted 2.

B. The defendant 2 and his defense counsel's arguments

f. No. 3-f. No. 3-g., there was no conspiracy to kill seafarers on the facts of the crime of subsection g.

C. The defendant 3 and his defense counsel's arguments

No. 3-e. (g) No. 3-e. (g) of the judgment, there was no conspiracy for murder of soldiers and crew members.

D. Defendant 4 and the gist of his defense counsel's assertion

No. 3-g. No. 3-g. No. homicide for the murder of seafarers.

2. Determination

A. Whether soldiers and crew members conspired to kill and injure Non-Indicted 3 on deck

1) Requirements for the establishment of the public conspiracy relationship in the public conspiracy co-principal

In relation to co-offenders who are co-processed with two or more persons in a crime, the conspiracy does not require any legal punishment, but is only intended to realize a crime by combining two or more persons, and even if there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if there was a combination of their intentions in order or implicitly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established, and even if there was no direct involvement in the conduct of the conspiracy, even if there was a person who did not participate in the conduct of the crime, he/she is held liable for the other co-principal's act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do30, Mar. 27, 1998).

2) Determination on the instant case

A) Whether Defendant 1 and 3 conspireds for murder and injury to military personnel

According to the evidence duly examined by the court below, including the interrogation protocol of the defendant 2 on February 10, 201 and the interrogation protocol of the defendant 2 on February 24, 201, the piracy of this case had been organized and organized, such as the selection of the ship hijacking centering on the two trees and wharfs, the surveillance of sweaks and communication equipment inside the steering house, the boundary of the wing beer, interpretation, and sweak, etc. In particular, during the use of weapons, the defendant 2 knew that the above ○○○○○○'s wing was included in the piracy of the above Maritime Operations Act and the total swelves on the swelve, including the military personnel, and it was found that the above swelve had been engaged in swelve by the 1st of the above swelve, and that the swelve had an access to the above swelve.

Therefore, regardless of whether Defendant 1 and 3 actually participated in the attack against soldiers, they are jointly liable for the facts constituting the crime of Article 3-5(e) of the judgment.

B) Whether Defendant 1 and 3 conspired with Nonindicted 3

According to each evidence duly examined in this court, including the prosecutor's statement as of February 17, 201 on Non-Indicted 3, it is reasonable to view that the piracy of this case, which was diversified after the first operation of the Navy, was assaulted and threatened against Korean seafarers who did not comply with their instructions. In particular, as to Non-Indicted 2, it was threatened with the captain's non-indicted 2 and isolated from other seafarers. Nevertheless, Non-Indicted 3 delivered the secret camera of Non-Indicted 2 captain to the Republic of Korea to the effect that it would interfere with the operation of ○○○○○○○○○○, and Non-Indicted 47 did not talk with the captain of this case. Thus, it is reasonable to view that Non-Indicted 3 of this case's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's piracy's she would interfere with the operation of this case.

Therefore, the defendant 1 and 3 are jointly liable for the facts constituting the crime of the No. 3-f. of the judgment.

C) Whether Defendants’ crew members conspired to use the “satisficide”

According to the evidence duly examined by Defendant 2, including the interrogation protocol of the prosecution on February 10, 201, the interrogation protocol of Defendant 3, the interrogation protocol of the prosecution on February 22, 2011, and February 24, 2011 against Defendant 3, and the police interrogation protocol of Defendant 4 on January 31, 201, Defendant 4, the instant piracy promised to allow seafarers to wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing, etc., from the steering wing to the outside of the steering house in the event of an attack upon Defendant 2’s instructions. Accordingly, the instant piracy committed the instant wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing, etc., which appears to have been impossible for the crew members to use the wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing, which appears to have been acknowledged immediately after the first wing 2 wing wing wing wing wing wing.

Therefore, even if other persons among the piracys of this case, who were not the defendants, were unable to get off the crew of the Navy into the wingbhead in the course of the secondary operations of the Navy, they were subject to the aforementioned prior recruitment, and thus, the defendants are liable for joint principal liability for the facts constituting the crime of the piracy 3-g of the judgment.

B. Whether Defendant 1’s captain’s attack against Nonindicted 2

1) The credibility of Non-Indicted 3 and 10’s statements

We examine the credibility of Non-Indicted 3 and 10 statements, which are the most reliable evidence about No. 3-g. of the ruling.

The following circumstances acknowledged by each evidence duly examined in this court, including the suspect interrogation committee held by the prosecutor on February 11, 201 and February 12, 2011, against Defendant 1, are: (a) Nonindicted 3 and 10, which were the most nearest at the time of the escape of Nonindicted 2’s captain, coincide with each other from the investigative agency to the court since this court; (b) there are somewhat differences in the urgency situation at the time of the investigation agency and the degree of memory or awareness of the location of the steering house; (c) there are little differences in the degree of the testimony of Nonindicted 3, 10, and other witnesses, such as Nonindicted 6, 7, and 2, and there are no parts contrary to the witness’s testimony in the steering house; (d) whether Defendant 1 had the AK gun inside the steering house; and (e) where the said Defendant had carried the said gun, Nonindicted 3 and Nonindicted 10, who were the other Defendants, have made a statement consistent with the above Defendant 1’s face at the time of operation or 1’s face.

2) Determination

공소외 3, 10의 각 진술, 피고인 3에 대한 2011. 2. 4.자 경찰 피의자신문조서를 포함하여 이 법정에서 적법하게 조사된 증거에 의하면, 당시 조타실 내에서 공소외 2와 머리를 맞대고 있었던 공소외 3과 공소외 2로부터 1m 내외밖에 되지 않는 배전반 앞에 있었던 공소외 10은 피고인 1이 총을 들고 공소외 2의 왼쪽에 서 있는 것을 본 사실, 공소외 3, 10, 6은 “캡틴, 캡틴.”이라며 선장을 찾는 소리를 들었고, 공소외 3, 10은 그로부터 얼마 지나지 않아서 해군의 총소리와 다른 총소리를 들은 사실, 피고인 1은 AK소총을 가지고 윙브릿지에서 경계를 서던 중 해군의 2차 구출작전이 시작되자 위 AK소총을 소지한 채 조타실 내로 피신한 사실, 당시 조타실 내에서 선원들을 감시하거나 취침 중이던 해적들은 총을 소지하지 아니한 사실, 피고인 1은 조타실 내에서 위 AK소총을 소지한 채 해군에 무전 연락을 취하려고 하였고, 그 후 무기를 조타실 밖으로 버리라는 두목의 지시에도 조타실에서 선실로 내려가는 계단 아래에서 위 AK소총을 버린 사실, 공소외 3은 피고인들이 해군에 체포된 직후부터 피고인 1이 공소외 2를 쏘았다고 지목한 사실, 공소외 2가 해군에 의하여 발견된 곳 옆에 있는 싱크대 문짝에 수평면을 기준으로 아래 30° 방향으로 AK소총 탄흔이 있는 사실, 공소외 2 선장의 좌측 대퇴골의 대전자부(좌측 둔부측) 창상 부위에서 이 사건 해적들이 사용한 AK소총탄 파편이 발견된 사실이 인정되는바, 위 인정 사실에다가 앞서 든 증거에 의하여 인정되는 다음과 같은 사정 즉, 피고인 1은 수사기관에서는 물론 이 법정에서도 해군의 2차 구출작전 당시 조타실 내에서의 행적에 관하여 진술을 번복하면서 제대로 설명하지 못하였고, 이에 관하여 다른 피고인들도 수사기관에서 피고인 1이 거짓말을 하고 있다고 한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 1이 공소외 2에게 총격을 가한 사실이 합리적 의심의 여지 없이 증명된다 할 것이다.

We examine whether the Criminal Code of the Republic of Korea and the Act on Punishment, etc. of Damaging Ships and Sea Structures (hereinafter referred to as the "Act on Punishment of Damaging Ships") apply.

Article 6 of the Criminal Act provides that "this Act shall apply to aliens who commit a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Korea against the Republic of Korea or against the nationals of the Republic of Korea: Provided, That this shall not apply to aliens who do not constitute a crime under the law of the place of the act, or who are exempt from prosecution or execution of sentence." The facts charged in this case are that the defendants committed a crime against the citizens of the Republic of Korea, and as acknowledged by investigation report (verification of the progress of discrimination at 000 U.S., confirmation of the progress of the crime, page 178 of the investigation record, and the police statement of Nonindicted 6 on the investigation record (No. 1301 of the investigation record), etc., the act in this case does not constitute "the law of the place of the act" on the high seas and it does not constitute "the case where the law of the place of the act does not constitute a crime

Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act provides that the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act shall also apply to "foreigners in the territory of the Republic of Korea who have committed crimes under Articles 5 through 13 outside the territory of the Republic of Korea". As seen earlier, Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act shall also apply to defendants under Article 3 subparag. 3 of the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act, so long as the present location of the defendants by legitimate forced enforcement is Busan, which is inside the territory of the Republic of Korea.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 342, 340(3) and (1), 30 (3) and (1), 30 (3-e.g., 3-E, h., h. marine robbery) of the Criminal Act; Articles 342, 338 (former part), 336, and 30 (the attempted murder at the market of 3-Ma, g., g., h., and h.) of the Criminal Act; Articles 340(2) and (1), 30 (the attempted murder at the market of 3-F. f. 3); Articles 337, 336, and 30 (the fact of injury by marine robbery at the market of 3-f. f. f. 3-6 f. 1), the latter part of Article 14(2) and the main sentence of Article 34(1), Article 136(1), the former part of Article 36(1), and Article 30(1) of the former part of the Punishment of the Vessels at the Ship Act

B. The remaining Defendants: Articles 342, 340(3) and (1), 30 (3) and (1), 30 (3-e.g., attempted murder at the time of sale), 342, the first sentence of Article 338, Articles 336, 30 (3-e.g., attempted murder at the time of sale), 340(2) and (1), 30 (3-f. at the time of sale), 337, 336, and 30 (3-f. at the time of sale), 12(4) and the former part of Article 12(1), Article 6(1) of the Act on the Punishment of Harm to Ships at the time of sale, Article 340(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act, Article 340(1), the latter part of Article 340(1), and Article 337, Article 336, and Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act.

1. Commercial competition;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of attempted murder at the time of sales, the crime of attempted murder at the time of murder at sea, each crime of attempted murder at sea, the crime of special obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the crime of attempted murder at sea, violation of the Punishment of Harm to Ships Act (the crime of attempted murder at sea): the punishment provided for attempted murder at sea against Non-Indicted 1, who is the most severe crime, and Article 3 of the judgment. (f) The crime of marine robbery, robbery, robbery, and violation of the Punishment of Murder at Ships Act (the crime of marine robbery, etc.): the punishment provided for the most severe punishment; (g) the crime of attempted murder at sea robbery at the time of sales; (g) the crime of attempted murder at sea; (g) the crime of attempted murder at sea; and (g) the crime of violation of the Punishment of Harm to Ships Act (the crime of attempted murder at sea): the punishment provided for the crime of attempted murder at sea, which is the most severe punishment on the victim Non-Indicted 4;

B. The remaining Defendants: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article 3-5 (e) at the time of the board), the crime of attempted murder at sea, the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in each special obstruction of the performance of official duties, the crime of causing bodily harm to each special obstruction of the performance of official duties, and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Harmful Acts to Ships Act (the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article 40): Punishment for the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article 40 and Article 50 (the crime of marine robbery at Sea): Punishment for the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article 3-5 (f) of the Criminal Act, the crime of attempted murder at sea, the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in each subparagraph of paragraph (e) at the time of the board): Punishment for the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article 4 of the judgment of the court below; Punishment for the crime of attempted murder at sea as referred to in Article

1. Selection of punishment;

Defendants: each choice of imprisonment for life and for the crime of injury by marine robbery on each crime of attempted murder by marine robbery;

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendants: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)2 of the Criminal Act (the crime of attempted murder at sea and attempted murder at sea)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (A) (in the case of the most severe punishment and the commission of the crime, Article 3-3 of the Criminal Act concerning attempted murder at sea and within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act concerning the punishment for attempted murder at sea);

B. The remaining Defendants: The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravated Punishment within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act with regard to an attempted murder by marine robbery against the victim non-indicted 1 who is the largest punishment and the crime committed)

1. Confiscation;

Defendants: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

As a result of preventing the crime in carrying large numbers of firearms and heavy-fires, the damaged seafarers and soldiers, etc. suffering from ir family members suffering from extreme mental and physical pains, and caused them to participate in international efforts to ensure international maritime safety, and to support the safe activities of our vessels, collective and organized attack has been committed against the armed forces of the Republic of Korea lawfully dispatched to the Republic of Korea. The act of piracy in this case is an act that can not be used as a sovereign state. Above all, the act of piracy in this case is an act that has a large amount of human life as security, and its motive is extremely and tamper, and the act of piracy in this case is an act that has the motive, such as capturing the ship by entering the high seas and attempting to capture the ship with the mother line, and there is a need to punish the Defendants.

Defendant 1 and Defendant 1 are the most likely to actively participate in the piracy of this case, such as Non-Indicted 2’s participation in the selection stand to capture ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, etc., based on personal retaliation appraisal, and Defendant 2 should be punished more severe than the rest of the Defendants by taking account of the following: (a) the degree of participation, such as participating in the selection stand to capture the ship of Mongolia, and launching the engine gun at the time of the primary rescue operation of the Navy; and (b) the degree of participation is more severe than the rest of the Defendants; (c) Defendant 3 does not take the role to monitor the communications equipment as well as did not possess the gun, and Defendant 4 appears to be the most seriously against the crew; and (d) Defendant 2 should be punished relatively in consideration of the fact that the captain wishes to take the most light punishment permitted by the Act.

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence (the unanimous verdict by nine persons);

(a) Crimes of attempted murder by sea robbery against soldiers, attempted murder by robbery, special obstruction of performance of official duties, and violation of the Punishment of Danger and Injury by Ships Act (Attempted Murder by Ships) against soldiers;

Defendants guilty

B. The crime of marine robbery, injury by robbery, and injury by robbery against Nonindicted 3, and the violation of the Punishment of Danger and Injury to Ships Act (ship hijacking, etc.) against Nonindicted 3

Defendants guilty

(c) Crimes of attempted murder by marine robbery, attempted murder by robbery, special obstruction of the performance of official duties, or violation of the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act (Attempted Murder by Ships) against seafarers;

Defendants guilty

D. The crime of attempted murder by marine robbery, attempted murder by robbery, injury resulting from special obstruction of the performance of official duties, and violation of the Punishment of Damaging Ships Act (Attempted Murder by Ships) by force against Nonindicted 2

Defendant 1 and the rest of the Defendants are not guilty

2. Opinions on sentencing

A. Defendant 1

Life imprisonment: 9 persons;

B. Defendant 2

15 years of imprisonment: Seven persons.

13 years of imprisonment: two persons;

C. Defendant 3

13 years of imprisonment: Six persons.

12 years of imprisonment: Three persons;

D. Defendant 4

13 years of imprisonment: Seven persons;

14 years of imprisonment: One person;

10 years of imprisonment: One person;

1. Summary of the facts charged

피고인 2, 3, 4는 피고인 1과 공모하여, 2011. 1. 21. 해군의 2차 구출작전으로 본래 이 사건 해적들의 계획이 무산되고 피고인들의 생존 여부도 장담할 수 없는 위기에 처하게 된 것이 선장인 피해자 공소외 2 때문이라고 생각하고 피해자를 살해할 것을 마음먹은 후, 피고인 1은 2011. 1. 21. 06:00경 UDT대원들의 조타실 진입 직전 조타실 내에서 “캡틴, 캡틴.”하며 선장을 찾다가 우현 싱크대 옆에 선수 방향으로 머리를 향하여 엎드려 있던 피해자 공소외 2를 발견하고, 그를 살해하기 위하여 피해자의 왼쪽에서 소지하고 있던 AK소총으로 피해자를 향하여 여러 발의 총격을 가하였으나, 해군이 피고인 1이 있던 조타실을 향하여 사격을 가하자 도주하는 바람에 피해자에게 약 16주간의 치료를 요하는 다발성 총상으로 인한 쇼크 패혈증 등의 상해를 가하는 데 그침으로써 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그쳤다.

2. Determination

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 alleged that there was no conspiracy with Defendant 1’s Nonindicted 2 regarding the total attack, and denied this part of the facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., one of the piracys of this case: (a) the crew was sing down on the wing wing wing wing gun; (b) the two piracy continued, and (c) Nonindicted 41, the two wing, ordered the instant piracy to abandon all weapons out of the steering house; and (d) the piracys of this case were either throw away weapons, and informed of the body inside the steering house, or immediately getting out of the steering house. In light of the fact that the piracys of this case were unable to achieve their goal and live, it can be recognized that the piracy waiveds of this case may be deemed to have waived their resistance as they were unable to contain their survival or survival; and (d) the contents of the decision of the instant piracys of this case were intended to achieve the original purpose even by taking into account the nature, etc., and it is difficult to find that the prosecutor’s murder and the reason for murder were not only the original purpose but also the evidence submitted to the Defendant 2.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, a judgment of innocence is rendered as to Defendant 2, 3, and 4 under the latter part of Article 325 of the

[Attachment] Crime List: Omitted

Judges Kim Jin (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin (Presiding Justice)