beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (1) did not have any motive to kill C, misunderstanding the legal principles, or misunderstanding the fact that the body of the Defendant was abandoned, it is insufficient to find the Defendant guilty of murder solely on the basis of the fact that the body of the Defendant was located in a place where the body was abandoned, and most of other circumstantial evidence are merely circumstantial evidence, and there is no evidence to prove that the facts charged with murder were not proven (the Defendant was aboard AV construction site at the time of the instant case and was operating a dump truck at around August 2003). However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, thereby misapprehending the legal principles on the probative value of evidence
In addition, considering the overall circumstances, it is not necessary to impose the location tracking device attachment order and compliance of the person who requested the attachment order, and there is no risk of recidivism.
(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an order to attach an electronic tracking device between 30 years in which imprisonment with prison labor for an indefinite term, or matters to be observed is imposed) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on November 27, 2007, on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant murdered the victim U as stated in the relevant facts charged. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence, etc. of the investigator’s testimony, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the admissibility of evidence.
(2) The punishment of the lower court against the Defendant’s case is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the part of the facts charged against C’s murder (the part found guilty by the lower court), the lower court did not contain a detailed statement regarding the assertion that the Defendant and the person requesting an attachment order are misunderstanding the aforementioned legal doctrine or misunderstanding of facts.