[1] Criteria for determining the ability of an infant to testify

[2] The case holding that the testimony ability of an infant who is 4 years old and 6 months old at the time of the case, and 6 months old and 11 months old at the time of legal testimony

[3] Whether the case where a person making the original statement made a statement in the court but his/her memory is denied and part of his/her statement made cannot be reproduced due to other reasons constitutes "when he/she is unable to make a statement due to other reasons" under Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act (affirmative)

[4] Criteria for determining probative value of a criminal identification statement

[5] The case holding that a criminal identification statement of an infant who is 6 years old and 11 months old at the time of the case was credibility

[1] Since the Criminal Procedure Act provides that anyone can be examined as a witness, in principle, and the court does not impose any age limit on the witness's ability to testify but takes charge of the court's free decision, the existence of a infant's ability to testify is not limited to the age of the person who makes the statement, but it should be determined individually and specifically by the court according to his/her intellectual level.

[2] 피해자이자 유일한 목격자인 유아가 사건 당시에는 만 4세 6개월 남짓, 법정에서의 증언 당시에는 만 6세 11개월 남짓된 여자 아이로서 어느 정도의 지적수준을 가지고 있었고 그녀가 경험한 사건은 "누군가가 자신의 어머니를 목을 조르고 머리를 벽 등에 찧는 방법으로 살해하고 자신도 같은 방법으로 살해하려 하였다."는 것으로서 그 사실 자체는 비교적 단순하여 그 정도 연령의 아이라고 하더라도 이를 알고 그 내용을 표현할 수 있는 범위 내의 것이라고 보여지고, 법정에서 위와 같은 사건의 핵심적 사항에 관한 질문의 취지를 대체로 이해하고 이에 대하여 간단히 긍정 또는 부정하는 식으로 답변하고 있다면, 그 유아에게는 그 증언의 신빙성 및 증명력 여부와는 별도로 자신이 과거에 경험한 사실을 그 기억에 따라 진술할 수 있는 증언능력이 있다고 한 사례.

[3] According to Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case where a person who requires a statement at a preparatory hearing or during a public trial is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, or any other cause, the admissibility of the statement, which is a professional evidence, can be acknowledged. In this context, the "when a statement is unable to be made due to death, illness, or any other cause" includes a case where a statement cannot be made even in the case of appearance unless it is limited to the case of impossibility of appearance, for example, where a statement is made in the public trial court, and part of the statement becomes viable at the time of witness examination.

[4] As evidence concerning the identity of a criminal and a witness, the assessment of the probative value of the victim's or witness's statement should be prudent. If the victim's statement or witness's statement is one of the main evidence, the assessment of the probative value of the victim's statement should be conducted. As such, since the victim's statement of the offender's category or witness's statement is aware of a crime, it is true that the victim's error in the process can be relatively low probative value compared to non-statement evidence, such as physical evidence, in that it has a lot of error in the process, in comparison with the victim's photograph or body after a certain period of time after the victim's memory on the witness at the scene of the crime, which is an exceptional and shock situation, the victim's statement has a risk of error due to the unique nature of the victim's statement that the victim and the witness have made a statement about the identity of the criminal and the defendant, the relationship between the victim's criminal and the witness (in particular, whether the victim had already known about the witness's name, distance, and time of the crime, etc.

[5] The case holding that the defendant's identity statement of an infant who is 4 years old and 6 months old and 6 months old at the time of the case was credibility on the ground that there was no possibility that the infant could have made a wrong statement due to a biased and ambiguous question by the surrounding people, such as mental ability of the infant, investigation agency, family member, etc.

[1] Article 146, / [2] Article 146, / [3] Article 314, / [4] Article 308, / [5] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] [1]

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Doz., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[3] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1211 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2711)

Defendant

Attorney Kim Jong-cheon

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

Criminal facts

The Defendant, his mother, Non-Indicted 2, from about 10 years ago to about 10 years old, was in a fluent relationship with Non-Indicted 1, the mother of Non-Indicted 2, who was the victim himself, and had been in a financial transaction with the victim. The Defendant himself, around April 195, was married with his wife Non-Indicted 3, and was living together at Non-Indicted 2, located in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, at Non-Indicted 40-dong, and was living together with his wife Non-Indicted 2's house located in the same fraternity, and was living together with the victim 1 and the victim 2, who was in a usual sense at a same fraternity group. On April 16, 1996, the Defendant used his own credit card with his wife 3,50 million won to get the Defendant paid the amount in arrears from the Defendant's credit card loan to KRW 1,800,000,000,000,000,000 won.

1. 1996. 8. 22. 21:20경 서울 용산구 후암동 (번지 생략) 소재 다세대주택 3층 피해자 1의 집에 찾아가 그 곳에서 피해자 1과 동녀로부터 금원을 차용하는 등의 문제에 관하여 심하게 다투던 중 순간적으로 격분하여 피해자 1과 동녀의 딸인 피해자 2(일본명 미나끼, 여, 4세)를 살해하기로 마음먹고 피해자 1의 목을 양손으로 잡고 누르며 머리를 그 곳의 벽이나 바닥, 모서리 등에 수회 찧어 피해자 1로 하여금 다발성 뇌좌상 및 두개골 골절상 등으로 그 자리에서 사망에 이르게 하여 동녀를 살해하고,

2. 같은 일시, 장소에서 피해자 1의 딸인 피해자 2의 목을 양손으로 누르고 머리를 벽 등에 찧어 동녀를 살해하고자 하였으나 동녀가 약 4주간의 치료를 요하는 두개골 골절 및 두개기저부 골절상 등을 입고 기절하여 쓰러지자 이를 죽은 것으로 오인하고 그냥 나가는 바람에 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그치고,

3. At around 00:20 the following day, in order to find the house of the victim 1 again, in order to conceal the crime by robbery, and furthermore, in order to destroy evidence by extinguishing the crime at the above place, he opened a balpology, balpology, etc. of the method to the place where the crime was committed, and displayed at a small room where the victim 1 died, and a structure used as a residence by setting fire by setting fire to several places in the house such as balp, balp, and stud, etc., and a structure used by a person by setting fire to a house.

Summary of Evidence

The Defendant denies all the facts charged in the instant case and at the same time contests the probative value of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, and at the same time, presented the evidence to support himself/herself that there is no fact between the scene of the instant crime. Therefore, in a criminal trial, the recognition of facts shall be based on the evidentiary evidence, but the probative value of such evidence shall be left to the free judgment of the judge (Articles 307 and 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the said judgment should conform to logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of a conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should be sufficient to have reasonable doubt.

Supreme Court Decision 96Do1783 delivered on November 13, 1998, Supreme Court Decision 94Do2316 delivered on December 22, 1994, and majority other than Supreme Court Decision 94Do2316 delivered on December 13, 1998.

Under our law, the admissibility and probative value of the evidence submitted in this case are examined as follows under the principle of the principle of trial of evidence and the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

1. Statement of the victim 2;

The victim 2 is the only person living in the scene of the crime of this case who directly appeared and has made a statement that the defendant is designated as the criminal. As such, the most direct evidence for recognizing the facts charged of this case is provided, it is necessary to examine in detail the probative value of the victim 2's statement in this case where the defendant completely denies the crime of this case.

The evidence concerning the statements made by the victim 2 is the victim 2's statements in the third trial records, the part of each statement made by the victim 2 in each statement made by the prosecutor and the judicial police officer in each part of the statement made by the victim 2 in each investigation report, the part of each investigation report made by the victim 2 in each investigation report (the investigation records from 153 to 154, 157, 168 to 169, 198 to 200, 360 to 361, 595 to 597), and the credibility and probative value of each statement made by the victim 2 in each investigation report are examined.

A. Determination on the victim's ability to testify

In principle, the Korean Criminal Procedure Act provides that anyone may be examined as a witness (Article 146 of the same Act). Since the Criminal Procedure Act does not impose any limitation on the ability of a witness to testify but entrusts the court with the free judgment of the court, there is an infant (child)

) Native children have become children prior to their ordinary school age. It refers to the new Korean Language Preliminary (No. 3) of that child.

The existence of the testimony ability should be determined individually and specifically by the court according to its intellectual level rather than by the age of the person who made the statement.

Supreme Court Decision 91Do579 delivered on May 10, 1991. The above decision held that the existence of a child's ability to testify shall be determined by considering the age of the person who made the statement, the level of pointed out, the attitude and contents of the statement, etc. specifically, and whether the past facts that had experienced belong to the range that can be changed by the person who made the statement's understanding and judgment, etc., and that it shall be determined by fully considering whether such past facts belong to the range that can be changed by the person who made the statement.

그러므로 살피건대, 증인 피해자 2는 1992. 1. 31.생으로서 이 사건 당시에는 만 4세 6개월 남짓, 법정에서의 증언 당시에는 만 6세 11개월 남짓된 여자아이인데 아래에서 보는 바와 같이 이 사건 이전에 이미 어린이집과 유치원에 다니고 학습지도 구독하고 개인방문 학습지도도 받는 등의 지적 수준을 가지고 있었고, 위 증인이 경험한 사건은 "누군가가 자신의 어머니를 목을 조르고 머리를 벽 등에 찧는 방법으로 살해하고 자신도 같은 방법으로 살해하려 하였다."는 것으로서 그 사실 자체는 비교적 단순하여 위 증인 연령 정도의 아이라고 하더라도 이를 알고 그 내용을 표현할 수 있는 범위 내의 것이라고 보여지며, 아래 다.의 (3)항의 피해자 2의 증언요지에서 보는 바와 같이 피해자 2가 위와 같은 사건의 핵심적 사항에 관한 질문의 취지를 대체로 이해하고 이에 대하여 간단히 긍정 또는 부정하는 식으로 답변하고 있음을 볼 때, 위 증인에게, 그 증언의 신빙성 및 증명력 여부와는 별도로, 자신이 과거에 경험한 사실을 그 기억에 따라 진술할 수 있는 증언능력이 있다고 보아야 할 것이다.

B. Determination on admissibility of the victim 2’s statement

As above, the third trial record stating the statement of a witness with testimony ability is admissible under the Criminal Procedure Act as well as the third trial record stating the statement of a witness with testimony ability is admissible under the Criminal Procedure Act. Each investigation report (Articles 153 through 154, 157, 168 through 169, Chapters 198 through 200, and 595 through 597) with the defendant's consent that the defendant may be admitted as evidence is all admissible. Furthermore, the prosecutor and judicial police officer's testimony concerning the part concerning the victim 2's statement in the statement of Masiogasno in the process of handling affairs by the prosecutor and judicial police officer is examined, and the victim 2 who made the original statement gives testimony at court that "I will tell the person who was close to the police officer or prosecutor," and each of the above statements is not admitted as authentic, but if the person who was in need of preparation or trial at a preparatory hearing or during the public trial is unable to make a statement or death due to illness or any other reason, it can be admitted as evidence.

Supreme Court Decision 92Do1211 delivered on August 14, 1992

Where he/she refuses to testify on the ground of loss of memory;

As to this case, the Japanese Supreme Court Decision 29Hun-Ga741, July 29, 291 [Attachment to the new case law - the publication of new law (5), the publication of new law (5), April 1978), 61 (No. 61) and fire extinguishing 651 on November 10, 193 (No. 1343, 215-22), and majority of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act (the Supreme Court Decision 1343, No. 1343, No. 215-22) recognize admissibility of the specialized statement in principle, but exceptionally, the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act recognizes admissibility of the hearsay statement under certain conditions such as "when it is impossible to make a statement at the preparatory hearing or during the public trial because the person is dead, mental or physical disorder, unknown whereabouts, or abroad."

Furthermore, even if a statement is made in the court court, where part of the statement becomes unusable because it was made to the effect that it is not memory of a certain matter at the time of examination of witness.

(2) On the other hand, the court below acknowledged the admissibility of evidence of the statement prepared by the prosecutor as to the part which was not made by the witness since the witness stated about the appearance of the offender or the situation of the crime at the time of questioning the victim of rape in the court of first instance on August 7, 2005 (the court of first instance - the new case - the Criminal Procedure Act (5), 686 through 6867), etc. (the Criminal Procedure Act). Furthermore, in the above court of first instance 26 (No. 30, 682 to 6826), the court of first instance held the admissibility of evidence of the statement prepared by the prosecutor as to the part which was not made by the witness since the witness stated about the appearance of the offender or the situation of the crime at the time of questioning the witness.

In this case, the defendant's statement constitutes a case where the victim 2, who is the original person making the statement, is unable to make the statement. (2) In light of the various circumstances as seen below, there is little room for false entry into the victim 2's statement contents or the preparation of the protocol about them, and the statement is made under particularly reliable circumstances because there are specific and external circumstances to guarantee the credibility and arbitability of the contents of the statement, and thus, the statement in the investigative agency of the victim 2's statement is admissible as evidence. Thus, each part of the investigation report of August 27, 1996 (Investigation Record 360 to 361) of the defendant's investigation report of August 27, 1996 (Investigation Record) is admissible as evidence. However, the above document is not subject to Article 314 of the same Act because there is no signature or signature of the victim 2,

Supreme Court Decision 98Do2742 delivered on February 26, 1999

C. Summary of the victim 2's statement

) On October 16, 1996, the victim 2 was able to use the Korean language of the same infant level prior to the time when he went to Japan according to his father's Masogasian on October 16, 1996, but as above, when he returned to Japan on September 20, 1998, he did not use Korean language properly and used Japanese language, so the subsequent statement was made through interpretation.

(1) From the date of the instant case to August 26, 1996, each investigation report on the victim 2's statement (the investigative records 153 through 154, 157, 168 through 169, 198 through 200, 595 through 597) was entered. According to the victim 2's statement, "the victim 1 was at least once after the date of the instant case 196, and the victim was at least twice (the name of the victim 1 omitted)", "I may know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know when I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know about I would like to know that I would like to know.

(2) The part of the victim 2’s statement statement in each prosecutor’s and judicial police officer’s statement of Masnogasian prepared to deal with affairs is summarized as follows.

(가) (누가 엄마와 자신을 그렇게 하였느냐고 묻자) 애기아저씨가 그랬어. (옆에 있던 아버지 마스오가스노리의 목 조이는 흉내를 내며) 이렇게 하였어. 엄마 머리에서 피가 났어. 나도 머리 피났어. 우리가 본 아저씨야. 두 번 할머니랑 엄마랑 나랑 갔어. 걸어 갔어. 나혼자 걸어갈 수 있어. 차조심해서 갔어. 애기 있었어. 애기랑 장난감 가지고 놀았어. 띵동 소리가 나서 내가 문을 열어 주었어. 애기아저씨가 조금 말한 다음에 때렸어. 엄마는 내방에 피흘리고 쓰러졌어. 나는 엄마방에 있었어. 애기아저씨는 하얀 옷 입었어. 머리는 짧았어. 점있는 아저씨. 점이 하나 있었어(집 찾아 갈 수 있냐고 묻자 겁먹은 얼굴을 하면서 모른다고 하다가 아빠가 여러번 설득하자 집을 알고 있다고 고개를 끄덕였다) (1996. 9. 7.자 경찰진술).

(나) (엄마와 자신을 때린 사건을 기억하느냐고 묻자 울먹거리며 겁에 질린 표정을 하며) 기억한다. (피고인의 사진을 보여 주며 이 아저씨가 엄마와 미나끼를 때린 아저씨냐고 묻자) 맞다. 그날 문은 띵동 소리가 나서 자신이 열어 주었다. (그날 몇번 애기아저씨가 왔느냐고 묻자) 처음 와서 애기아저씨가 때려 쓰러졌기 때문에 그 후 몇번 왔는지는 기억없다. 자신은 쓰러진 다음 언제인지 모르지만 깨어나니 연기가 나고 있었다. 그 후에 일어난 일은 잘 기억나지 않는다. 애기아저씨가 자신의 집에 놀러온 적이 있고, 올 때는 혼자 온 것 같다(1998. 9. 20.자 경찰진술).

(C) (I am asked to see) I am on the (I am on the (I am on the (I am on the (I am on the) I am on the (I am on the (I am on what I am on) I am on the (I am on the) house, and I am on the (I am on the (I am on the) I am on the (I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the), and I am on the (I am on the), and I am on the (I am on the), I am on the (I am on the).I am on. I am. I am on.

(3) The victim 2 made the following statements at the third trial date of this court ( January 12, 1999), which was 2 years and 4 months after the date of the instant case.

(10) On August 196, a prosecutor's newspaper is ① (1) the old frighter and frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighteraser frighter frighteraser frighter frighteraser frighter frighter, and his father frighter frighter frighter frighter fater frighter frighter, etc.). (10) The prosecutor's office frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter frighter.

(B) On the examination of the defense counsel, ① it was asked to her house on the day. ② It was not asked to her house without being satisfyed. ③ He may ask to her (I would like to ask whether she was satisfy and satisfy). ④ (I would like to ask her questions about whether she was satisfy)? (I would like to ask her if she was her house?) I would like to ask her (I would like to ask her if she was satisfy and satisfy?) I would like to ask her (I would like to ask us that she was satisfy?? I would like to ask us that she would know she would have come to her house? I would like to ask her (I would like to ask she you you would know that she would have come to her house? I would have come to know that she would have come to her house?

(C) On the examination of the presiding judge, (1) the witness may be asked. (2) The father of the ( who is asked to what is or what is) may send to the school. (3) The face of the peter is asked to be known at the present time). (4) The defendant who was withdrawn from the court was asked to appear in the court, and the defendant was asked to make a statement or a statement by concealing his body and knowing his answer. (5) The defendant did not appear in the court, and the defendant was asked to be able to be aware of his body.)

D. Determination on the probative value of the victim 2 statement

(1) General problems in criminal identification statements

As evidence concerning the identity of a criminal and a witness, an assessment of the probative value of the statement should be prudent when the victim's statement or witness's statement is revealed or is a main evidence. Such an assessment of the probative value of the statement should be conducted. In addition to the general risk that the evidence of the statement is relatively low in probative value compared to non-statement evidence, such as physical evidence, in that there are many kinds of errors in the process of the statement since the victim's statement is aware of the crime and memory, and thus, the victim's external observation of the crime and the witness's identity should be sufficiently taken into account: (i) the relationship between the victim, etc. and the witness (in particular, the victim, etc. has already become aware of the crime); (ii) the relationship between the victim, etc. and the offender, etc. (in addition, whether the victim, etc. has already become aware of the crime); (iii) the victim's external observation of the crime including physical evidence; and (iv) the victim's subjective relation between the witness and the witness's physical condition; and other factors.

) 석정일정, "범인식별공술の증명력", 판례タイムス 738호, 1990. 12., 52∼53 및 58∼61면.

In the instant case, in light of the victim 2’s statement and the various evidence revealed below, it is clear that the victim 2, who appeared to have been aware of the Defendant prior to the instant case, and that the victim 2 was able to accurately view the face of the offender at the time of the instant case. These facts are the grounds to support the probative value of the victim 2’s statement in relation to the said criteria: (i) and (ii) the victim 2, who was under the age of 2, was asked by police officers or family members after the instant case, and the testimony in this court was made at the time of 2 years and 4 months or more from the time of the instant case; and (iii) the above statements were made at the time of the instant case, and (iv) the credibility and probative value of the victim 2’

In relation to these criteria, the following precedents are worthy of reference in order to consider the credibility of a child’s identity statement. However, among these precedents, there are many cases where the credibility of a victim or witness’s statement is denied on the grounds that the victim’s or witness’s statement, who is an infant, is contradictory or reversed, or the time has elapsed, is exaggerated or distorted. In this case, there is no special inconsistency or change in the contents of a statement made by the victim 2 after a considerable period of time, and there is no special inconsistency or change in the contents of the statement between them.

(1) Supreme Court Decision 91Do579 Decided May 10, 1991 (Supreme Court Decision 91Do579 Decided June 10, 191)

The fact that the victim of the crime of bodily injury resulting from rape left the victim at the time of the accident is 3 years and 3 years and 6 months at the time of the testimony is experienced by the female. The testimony is relatively simple and simple that "the defendant tried to put the victim's panty in the sound part of the victim after putting the victim out of the victim's panty, leaving the victim's panty, leaving the defendant's panty, leaving the victim's panty, leaving the victim's panty, and leaving the victim's panty." Thus, even if the victim's age is a child, the victim's ability to testify is recognized, and the victim's testimony is also acknowledged in light of the above circumstances and the witness's statement immediately after the victim suffered loss.

② 일본최고재판소 소화 63(あ)130호 평성원년 10. 26. 판결(판례タイムズ 713호, 75∼81면)

In light of the facts charged that the defendant was 9 years old and 4 years old and 30 minutes old and 4 years old and 5 years old and 5 years old and 5 years old, the court below held that the victim's first statement that the victim's identity was 30 minutes old and 30 minutes old and 4 years old and 4 years old and 5 years old and 30 minutes old and 5 years old and 5 years old and 5 years old and 5 years old, the court below held that the victim's first statement that the victim's identity was 62 years old and 62 years old and 138 years old and 62 years old and 15 years old, and that the victim's first statement that the victim's identity was 3 years old and 5 years old since 3 days old and 5 days old since 3 days old and the victim's first statement that the victim was able to have become aware of the victim's contact with the 1st son, not the victim's first statement that he was 3 years old and the defendant's first statement.

However, the court of final appeal rejected the credibility of the statement on the following grounds: (a) the victim voluntarily shown that the defendant was living in the highest position of the defendant 2 to 3 times and that there is no fact that the statement was divided; (b) the victim's statement on characteristics such as the appearance, clothes, etc. of the offender is more detailed and reliable than the immediately following the case; (c) the victim's mother and the defendant had already heard such facts before the victim's mother and the attending teacher to the police; (d) the victim had been living in Japan on the last 14th following the following day of the case, and the victim was living in Japan on the fifth floor from the first class A, the victim was divided from the first class's elevator in his highest position; and in light of the statement, the victim appeared to have been aware of whether the defendant was living in the highest position of the defendant at the time of the case; and (d) the victim's statement made through the conversation with the above grade 1.

③ The Japanese Supreme Court on the Fire 41 (No. 1419) Fire Fighting 28 January 28, 444 (No. 572, No. 88 through 96 pages)

자동차사고의 목격자가 목격 당시에는 3세 4개월이었고 그로부터 3년 3개월이 지난 후에 증언한 것이라면, 그 사이에 경찰관, 가족 등에 의한 여러 종류의 유도·암시가 작용할 수 있고 또한 기억의 상실·변용( 용)가능성이 높으며, 처음의 진술내용은 간단한 것 밖에 없는데 그 후의 구체적인 진술은 일관성 없고 동요하고 있다는 등의 이유로 6세 7개월 된 목격자의 증언의 신빙성을 배척하였다. 반면 이 사건의 원심(일본대판지방재판소 사건번호 불상 소화41. 6. 29. 판결)은 유아인 목격자가 "그 애가 에비스(エビス)옥(피고인은 주식회사 에비스옥의 자동차를 운전하는 자였다)의 붕붕(ブウブウ)에 부딪혀 넘어져서 울었다."는 등의 유아의 자발적 표현으로 보이는 진술을 하고 있는 점 등을 들어 그 진술의 신빙성을 인정하였었다.

④ The Ministry of Justice of the Dogyeong High Court of Japan (No. 49 (No. 145) No. 145 (No. 817, No. 120 through 126) fire extinguishing 16 October 16, 50

Although the 6 years old at the time of damage made a statement to the effect that the her mother was sexually affected on more than two occasions, it rejected the credibility of the victim’s statement on the ground that the her mother had followed the her mother by making corrections to the purport that the her mother was sexually affected, and the her father asked the victim about whether her mother was a child when she was sexually living together with the victim," and the victim asked the victim about whether her father was a child when she was sexually living together with the victim, and the victim was sexually living together with the victim. On the other hand, the victim’s statement could have taken a permanent attitude toward the questions from the adoptive parent during which the victim was exposed.

⑤ On September 28, 42, 42, the number of cases of the Japanese Gyeongyeong Regional Court (cases No. 501, 120 through 122)

피고인이 그 집앞에의 길 근처에서 당시 4세인 피해자 A와 당시 8세로서 A의 언니인 B가 지나가는 것을 보고, 그 중 A를 자신의 집으로 데려가 동녀의 하의를 벗기고 음부에 손가락을 넣은 등 강제로 추행하였다는 공소사실에 대하여, 증인인 A와 B가 경험한 사실은 '자매가 손을 잡고 걸어가는데 어떤 남자가 A를 그의 집으로 데려가서 위와 같이 추행하였다.'는 단순한 사건이므로 이들 연령 정도라 하더라도 충분히 이해할 수 있는 범위 내의 것이라고 보아 피해자들의 증언능력을 인정하고, 나아가 A가 '까까머리(ぼうず)'의 남자를 알고 있다고 진술하고 있는 점, 범행 며칠 후 A, B로부터 이와 같은 사실을 들은 양친들이 각자 (들은) 경위에 관하여 진술하고 있는 점 등에 비추어 A, B들의 증언은 기억에 근거한 사실을 그대로 진술한 것이라고 인정되어 그 진술에 양친들로부터의 암시에 의한 영향이나 기억의 틀림, 거짓말, 인식부족 등의 의문이 있다고 볼 여지가 없다고 하여 진술의 신빙성을 인정하였다.

(2) Determination as to the mental ability of an infant

In our rule of experience, it cannot be said that the statements of young children are generally less reliable than the statements of adults, and rather, the credibility of the statements of young children can be higher, depending on circumstances. However, it cannot be denied that the statements of young children are more distorted than those of adults, such as the incorrectness of the observation, recognition, ability of suppression, lack of speech and the possibility of higher distortions by the influence of the surrounding people, etc., compared to that of adults; however, it cannot be denied that there is a higher possibility of

() According to the Robert S. Siegler, Whiteren's Thinking, Prench Div. (198), 175-17, the process from human memory to human memory is generally divided into: (i) the process from human memory to human memory, and (ii) the process from human memory to human memory, and (iii) the expression of the fact that the core of information could not be grasped at the stage of symbolization, and (iv) the fact that the core of information could not have been seen at the stage of symbolization, and (v) the fact that the situation was important due to weak knowledge about the value of an object did not mark what occurred, and (v) the process of storage is not only lost as soon as possible depending on the flow of time, but also those who were asked by the surrounding people; and (v) the fact that the victim did not have an influence on his/her memory at the first stage, but in particular, he/she did not have an influence on his/her whereabouts.

For a certain extent, it is clear that young children can memory and make a statement of the facts they experienced at a level consistent with the substantive truth at the level consistent with the mental age. However, it is difficult for young children to accurately express the substance of the case by themselves, and it is more specific to ask questions about the general question and make a statement by recovering memory.

) According to Robert S. Siegler, 178 pages, there have been many studies in the U.S. mainly in order to search for the issue of the credibility of children’s statements in sexual abuse cases against children. The results of these studies indicate that, while presenting the characteristics according to the above stages of child detention, a questioner must make detailed and specific questions to the extent necessary to draw his/her memory from a neutral point of view so that he/she can hear accurate statements from a child, and that questions need not be repeated more than necessary.

In the instant case, the first victim 2 was 4 years old and 6 months old at the time of the instant case, with intellectual level, such as getting a child care center and a kindergarten, seeking learning guidance, and receiving personal visit guidance, etc. prior to that time, and made it clear that he/she has made it clear that he/she had an equal and distinct and distinct character and communication (the statement of Ginsung, Yellow, Pyeong Pyeong, Cho Jong-hee, Kim Jong-won). The statement to the effect that he/she had a spirit at the time of birth in the instant case immediately after that of the instant case, and that he/she had an expression to the extent that he/she knows that he/she knows the offender (the statement of leapin and Park Jae-in) and that he/she had a consistent expression to the effect that he/she had an equal mental ability to view that he/she had a lot of mental ability at the time of the instant legal testimony as stated in the second paragraph, and that he/she had a simple and consistent statement to the effect of his/her own testimony at the time of the victim at that time of the instant case.

However, according to the victim 2's statement in the court, since the defendant stated that he was the defendant at the time of the crime, he was unable to use the above (A) (3) and he was able to capture the defendant at the time of the crime, (B) again after he responded to the above (B) 1, he was able to ask questions about the defendant's testimony at the time of the crime, and (3) he was able to ask questions about the defendant's testimony at the time of the crime, not at the time of the crime, at the time of the crime, at the time of 196.9 and around 11.6, since he was able to ask questions about the above facts that he was under investigation by the investigative agency, (4) it was impossible to use the witness's testimony at the time of the crime, and (5) it was possible to ask questions about the victim's testimony at the time of the crime, and (4) it was able to ask questions about the victim's testimony at the time of the crime.

(3) Determination on the possibility of distortion by external impacts

In the case of young children, it is easy to be affected by questions, particularly biased or cuging, in comparison with adults or children, in the case of young children;

) Maggie Bruck, Stephen J. Ceci & Helene Hembrooke, "Reliability and Credibility of Young Children's Reports", American Psychologist, 1998. 2., 140－141면. 여기에서는, 유아의 진술에 영향을 미칠 수 있는 편향적·암시적 신문의 형태(Interviewer bias and Suggestive interviewing techniques)로, ① Misleading questions(잘못된 진술을 유도하는 질문으로서, 예컨대 어떤 사람이 아동을 접촉한 사실이 없음에도 "그가 너를 만질 때 무슨 옷을 입고 있었니"라고 묻는 등이다), ② Stereotype inducement(선입견을 주는 것으로서, 예컨대 질문 전에 어떤 사람이 '나쁘다'든가 '이러한 나쁜 짓을 한다'는 등의 말을 해 주는 등이다), ③ Impartial or threatened atmosphere(불공정하거나 위압적인 분위기하에서의 신문으로서, 예컨대 질문자가 자신이 원하는 아동의 대답이 나오면 강하게 긍정을 하는 모습을 보여 주면서도 그렇지 아니한 대답에는 이를 무시하는 태도를 보여주는 등이거나, 나아가서는 원하는 대답을 듣기 위하여 아동을 위협 내지 회유하는 등이다), ④ Guided imagery or memory work(상상을 통하여 진술케 하는 것으로서, 예컨대 질문자가 아동으로 하여금 어떠한 사건이 일어났는가를 머리속에 그려 보고 말하여 보라고 하는 등이다) 등을 들고 있다.

In this case, the victim 2, who is the sole witness and the victim, may be asked by the police officer or the surrounding person continuously and repeatedly questioning about the victim 2, who is the victim and the only witness, and as such, there is a possibility that the victim 2, who is the infant, might have been affected by such external influence, and therefore, the victim 2 cannot be asked about whether or not the victim 2 made a false statement due to such external impact. However, the possibility of distortion is the most likely to occur in the process of repeatedly questioning the victim 2 to hear the criminal identification statement from the victim 2, the only witness at the initial stage of investigation. Thus, each investigation report (the investigation record 153 through 154, Chapters 157, 168 through 169, Chapters 19, 198 through 20, 595 through 597) from August 24, 196 to August 26 of the same year, 199.

(A) The possibility of distortion by an investigative agency

According to the records of seizure of the victim on August 23, 1996 (in the preparation of the records of investigation record 38 through 39), one right (Evidence 2), one right from the seized family name (Evidence 3), and one investigation report (In the investigation records 132 through 133), etc. immediately after the crime of this case, the name of the defendant was collected from the site of August 23, 1996, and the family register of the victim 1 collected together with the name of the defendant was collected from the site of this case on April 11, 1996, "the husband M 11 hours", "the non-indicted 3, non-indicted 4 om" as of April 15 of the same year, and "the non-indicted 3, non-indicted 4 om" as of April 16 of the same year, and "the non-indicted 20 days' phone number was removed from the defendant's initial investigation record as of April 24 and 208 days'.

However, the victim's statement 2 expressed on August 23, 196 to August 25 of the same year including the victim's statement 1 to 154, 167, and 168 through 169, the victim's statement 1 to 2 was changed by the victim's statement 1 to 4, and the victim's statement 2 to 2 was changed by the victim's statement 1 to 27, the victim's statement 1 to 27 was changed by the victim's statement 1 to 4, and the victim's statement 2 to 27, the victim's statement 2 to 4, the victim's statement 1 to 2, the victim's statement 2 to 5, the victim's statement 1 to 2, the victim's statement 2 to 5, the victim's statement 2 to 7, the victim's statement 1 to 3, the victim's statement 2 to 5, the victim's statement 2 to 7, the victim's statement 2 to 1 to 3.

Therefore, in light of the above investigation process, at the time when the victim 2 made a statement to the effect that "Is son...." as shown in the investigation report dated August 26, 1996, it is not recognized that the investigation agency made a statement to that effect by the victim 2 by questioning the victim 2 about the convenience and cancer who is a criminal, and that he/she made a statement to that effect. In addition, according to the above investigation report (Investigation Records 153 to 154, 168 to 169, 198 to 200, 595 to 597), the victim 2 was unable to respond to the police officer's questions due to the above physical injury and shock on August 23, 196, and the victim 2 was unable to respond to the police officer's questions, including the victim's answer to questions, and the victim's statement was made by the police officer during his/her time-to-face questioning from 20 minutes to 30 hours per day.

Furthermore, the part of the victim 2's statement in the above B-B-2 of the record of statement as to Masiogasno in the process of specifying the defendant's memory and statement about the situation as of August 26, 1996 after the victim 2 was identified as the offender, which affected the part of the victim 2's statement in the above B-B-2 of the record of each disposition taken by the prosecutor and judicial police officer in detail. Since it is difficult for the investigative agency to detect and state the specific situation at the time of the case because the victim 2 is aged and it is difficult for the victim 2 to repeatedly ask the defendant specific questions, but it is considerably large enough for the victim 2 to voluntarily make statements about the defendant's crime and from the whole contents of the statement itself, it is not possible to see that the victim 2 made a false statement in the process of investigation to guarantee the objectivity of the victim 2.

(B) The possibility of distortion by the people around;

According to each investigation report on the hearing of the victim 2's statements (except for the part that does not recognize some probative value in the following) and each of the police officers' statements (except for the part that does not recognize probative value in the following) in the above investigation report (Articles 153 through 154, 157, 168 through 169, 198 through 200, 59, and 595 through 597 of investigation records) and the police officers' respective statements in the prosecutor's office and this court as to the hearing of the victim 2's statements, the police officers' 2 father's Masia, Esiogas No. 1 and Esio No. 8 were present at the victim 2's prosecutor's office and police statements after the victim 2 were present, the above Msno No. 2's family members, as mentioned above, may have an impact on fral and culites in the process of nursing or protecting the victim 2.

However, according to the evidence adopted by the court after the examination of evidence, it is difficult for the victim to 1 to 2 times a month while residing in Korea, and the defendant did not have any special reason to have the victim 2 classified the defendant as a criminal. Nonindicted Party 1 knew about about 10 years prior to the defendant's mother, and even around the time of the instant case, it is difficult to view the victim's statement that Nonindicted Party 5 and 6 did not know about the fact that the defendant had been living together with the victim 2 at the time of the instant case, and that there was an error in the victim's statement from 9 to 20 days prior to the instant case. It is difficult to view that there was no other reason to view that the victim's statement was distorted by Nonindicted Party 2 as the victim's suspect on the day of the instant case (the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 knew). The victim's statement cannot be seen to have been distorted by the victim 2 at the time of the instant investigation. It is also difficult to see that there was an error in the victim's statement as well as the victim 2.

Furthermore, although the statements made by the victim 2 in the court are after a considerable period of time from the time of the case, it is true to view that the statements made by the female at the investigation stage repeats the major contents of the statements (the criminal defendant who is a "responding c."). Thus, there is no room to regard that the statements made by the victim 2 in the court were separately affected by the surrounding

(C) Characteristics and possibility of distortion of the witness situation of the instant case

In particular, in relation to testimony of crimes against young children and children, a lot of studies have been conducted to investigate the credibility of statements made by victimized children about sexual abuse cases in the United States, and most of the subjects of the studies are not directly sexual contact unlike the actual situation. Therefore, there is a fundamental question about the view that children's statements may be distorted due to a biased or crymal examination based on these results of the study.

() According to the Wilam Damon, Handogy, V.4 (5th edit), John Wily & Sron, Inc., Inc., 197), 724-726, there is a question as to whether children have made a false statement to the extent specified in the previous research results in recent cases. As such, there is a question as to whether children are important or unfolded, a number of recent studies set the materials as a similar case to sexual contact, and at the same time consider the effects of a more diverse form of biased and cromatic newspapers.

Furthermore, in this case, the facts experienced by the victim 2 themselves are that 'the Nuo group, attempted to kill her mother and murder her her mother, and became the her mother,' and it is a significant and shock fact without any sexual abuse degree, and it is obvious that 2 victim 2 has witnessed immediately immediately next to the her mother in all the situations from the process of dispute with her mother to the crime, and in this case, it is obvious that she was aware that her her mother was the her mother, and therefore, she cannot be viewed as memory and statement (i.e., the her criminal who was not deemed the her criminal at the scene of the crime, or a false statement is made with knowledge that she was not the criminal) by external influence.

(4) Sub-determination of probative value

The victim 2 not only has the ability to testify in the court but also has mental ability to make a reliable statement at the time of testimony in this case and this court. Among the evidence related to the statements of the female, the part concerning the statements of the victim 2 stated in each investigation report from August 24, 1996 to August 26, 196, each of the above investigation records of the victim 2, the part concerning the statement of the prosecutor and judicial police officer, each of the part concerning the statement of the victim 2 in the statement of the victim 2, and the part concerning the statement of the victim 2 in the third trial records of this court, and the part concerning the statement of the victim 2 in the third trial records of this court, are consistent with the core part of the statement, which is consistent with the facts of this case, and therefore, it is sufficient to prove the facts of the crime in full view of other evidence presented below.

2. Each statement made by Masiogasno, Nonindicted 1, and 8

The victim 1’s husband, Masiogasianian, Non-Indicted 1, Non-Indicted 8, and Non-Indicted 6, the mother of Non-Indicted 1, and Non-Indicted 8 and the Non-Indicted 6, etc., are making each statement in support of the facts charged in this case as to the circumstances before and after August 22, 1996 in which this case occurred, the victim 2, face-to-face and became a criminal, and the victim 1, 2, etc., and the relation between the defendant and the victim 1, 2, etc.

A. Determination on admissibility of evidence

Of the aforementioned statements or statements made by Masiogasno, Nonindicted 1, 8, and 6, the part concerning the admissibility of evidence of the part concerning which the victim 2 made a statement is the victim’s statement. However, as seen earlier, the victim 2, who made the original statement, constitutes “when the person who made the original statement is unable to make a statement due to death, illness, or any other reason” as provided in Article 314 or 316(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the said statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances. Accordingly, each of the statements made by 2, as mentioned above, are admissible.

As a similar case, the judgment of February 7, 31, 2568 of the Japan East Warning, etc. Court (No. 30 of the Japan Eastern Warning, etc.) (No. 688-6870 of the above new case law – the Criminal Procedure Act (No. 5 of the 6868-68-680 of the above), which recognized admissibility of evidence of a witness’s testimony on the premise that when the person who made the statement is unable to make his/her memory at the time due to the mental or physical disorder of Article 321(1)3 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act (no. 321(1)3 of the Japanese Criminal Procedure Act) includes a case in which he/she is unable to make his/her memory at the time due to the passage of time or other reasons.

B. Determination on probative value

The gist of each of the statements or statements made by the persons mentioned above is as follows. Among these statements or statements made by the persons mentioned above, the statement made by the non-indicted 1-2 (d) and (e) and the part made by the non-indicted 8-3 (b) and the statement made by the non-indicted 6 in the court cannot be believed as they are, because they are in conflict with the other persons' statements or their own statements or their own statements made by the non-indicted 6, or they are in conflict with their consistency or rationality. Other statements made by the non-indicted 1, the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 8 are found to have been reversed, or somewhat exaggerated, or inconsistent with their respective statements made by the non-indicted 6 in the process of making statements over a considerable period from the date of the occurrence of the case to the date of the examination of evidence. In particular, since the part made by the non-indicted 1 was already over 70 years old at the time of the case, it is difficult to find the remainder of the statements or statements made by the non-indicted 2 in general.

(1) A summary of the statement made by Esiogasno;

(A) On August 22, 1996, on the day of the instant case, when a telephone call was made one time a day in Japan to the victim 1, Japan, and on August 22, 1996, the day of the instant case, at around 20:45, the victim finished the telephone call by having the telephone cut first, unlike usual, at around 20:45. Moreover, the telephone was made about about about about the extent, and around 23:50 to 52 minutes of the telephone at around 23:5 minutes of the weather, and the signal was made only when the signal was sent or the signal was not made three times between 00:20 to 30 days following the following day (the police statement from August 23, 1996 to August 24, 198, the prosecutor’s statement made on November 13, 1998).

(나) 1996. 8. 27. 딸인 피해자 2를 일반병실에서 간호하고 있을 때 12:30경 경찰관들이 피고인의 사진 3장을 들고 왔으며 다시 15:30경 피고인을 데려왔다. 사진을 보여 주자 사진 속의 남자를 손가락으로 가리키며 엄마를 때리고 자신도 목을 조르고 발로 찬 사람이라고 하였고, 사진을 치우라면서 손으로 치기도 하였다. 그 후 경찰관들이 위 남자를 병실로 데리고 들어왔을 때 딸이 침대에 앉아 있다가 그를 보더니 고개를 푹 숙이고 덜덜 떨었고(검찰에서는 당시 피고인을 제대로 쳐다보지 못하고 곁눈질로 힐끔힐끔 보았고 그 다음에 계속하여 손짓으로 피고인을 내보내라고 하면서 말도 못하고 덜덜 떨었다고 진술하고 있다.) 경찰관들이 그를 데리고 나가자 떨면서 빨리 병실문을 잠그라고 하였다. 당시 처음에는 딸하고 둘이 있었는데 경찰관들이 위 남자를 데리고 왔고, 그를 데리고 나가자 바로 공소외 1과 공소외 8이 들어 와서 피해자 2와 무슨 이야기를 하였다(1996. 8. 27.자 경찰진술, 1998. 11. 13.자 제1회 검찰진술). 위 대면 당시 피고인은 더운 여름인데도 상의 맨 윗단추까지 잠그고 왔고, 자신과 피고인은 과거 몇 번 본 일이 있어 평소 인사를 하였었는데 그날 병원에서는 피고인이 자신을 제대로 쳐다보지 못하며 고개를 숙였다(1998. 9. 20.자 경찰진술). 위와 같이 피해자 2는 피고인의 사진을 볼 때나 직접 대면할 당시 피고인을 범인으로 정확히 지목하였고 피고인과의 대면 당시에는 무서움에 떨었으며, 피고인 역시 평소 안면이 있던 자신을 제대로 쳐다보지 못하였다. 피해자 2는 1996. 9. 9. 경찰의 실황조사시 자신과 배영옥(사고현장 건물의 건물주), 김지원(통역인) 등과 함께 사건현장에서 피고인이 살던 공소외 2의 집까지 정확히 찾아간 사실이 있다(제3회 공판기일의 법정진술).

(C) His memorys on 3 to 4 occasions (for the prosecutor’s office, 70 instances of the victim’s 70-day life, her mother’s her mother’s 70-day marriage day, her mother’s 9-day marriage day, and her mother’s 1 together with the victim’s 1. The victim 1 went together with the victim 2 at his home when she talks with the victim 1 in Japan. At the time she talks with the victim 1 in Japan, she was 1 to 3 times a week. At 1 to 1, she was 1 to 2 of the victim 1, and 1 to 3 times a week. While she was found to have difficulty, she was 1 to 2 of the victim 1 and 9 of the victim 2, she was 1 to 9 of the victim 1 and she was 1 to 9 of the prosecution her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother her mother she was 19 of the victim 1.

(2) Summary of Nonindicted 1’s statement

(A) On August 22, 1996, at 11:00 a.m., 2 and 11:00 p.m., her husband and wife were playing in the house of 1:00 p.m. and 7:0 p.m., her husband and wife took care of her her son and her son, and her son and her son and her son her son her son her son her son her son her son and her her son her son her son her son her son her son (in the legal statement, her her son she was reported to her her son her son her bbbbed at 20:30 p.m.). At the police statement of August 23, 1996, her her her son and her her son her son she stated at 15:5 months (the last her her her son statement).

(나) 피해자 2는 1996. 8. 27. 경찰관들이 피고인의 사진을 보여주니 엄마와 나를 때린 아저씨라 말하고 무섭다면서 사진을 치우라 하였고, 형사들이 피고인을 데리고 병실에 들어오자 그를 보는 순간 고개를 들지 못하고 아무런 말을 하지 못한 채 눈을 감았으며, 얼마 후 피고인을 밖으로 내보내니 문을 닫으라고 하며 계속 무섭다고 하였다. 피해자 2가 고개를 푹 숙이고 말을 하지 않아 그때 자신과 공소외 8은 밖으로 나와 있었고 그 후 경찰관들이 피고인을 데리고 나가기에 병실로 들어와 자신이 피해자 2에게 조금 전에 온 아저씨가 너와 엄마를 때린 사람이냐고 하니까 그렇다고 하며 고개를 끄떡거렸다(1996. 8. 27.자 및 9. 5.자 경찰진술, 제5회 공판기일의 법정진술).

(C) The head of Nonindicted Party 2, a mother of the Defendant, went to his house for about 10 years at the same Dongdong, and her husband was married, and 1 degree of money transaction was made with his father and her mother. The Defendant was well aware of his father and her mother, 1 degree 1 victim 2, and her father and her mother got to play several times at his house, and her mother 20,000 Japan. The Defendant was boomed in Korea with 20,000, and the Defendant 2 got to drinkd with his house at that house. The victim 2, as seen above, 199 and 199 of 199 of 196 of 198 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 1995 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 196 of 1995 of 1.

(D) On August 22, 1996, around 20:30 on August 22, 1996, when coming from the house of his wife, the victim 2 came to go to the road. In order to see that her grandchildren enter the road, she was concealed at the front of her house in order to see that she was her grandchildren, but at that time, she was spherbing toward the front of her house and going to the direction of Non-Indicted 2’s house. It was evident that she was her to her to spherbing off the alley, and that she would go to the direction of her house and Non-Indicted 2’s house. The same was the same as her spherbing off the light if she go to the wall of his/her alley, and it was turned to the spherbing off (the prosecutor’s statement of November 10, 1998).

(E) From August 23, 1996, the victim 2 received medical treatment in the middle-patient room, and thereafter moved to the general hospital. From August 24, 1998 when the patient room was located, the victim 2 was called the defendant, who was the defendant. However, since around August 24, 1998 when the patient room was located in the middle-patient, the victim 2 did not talk to the surrounding person or the police by August 27, 198 (the fifth trial date's statement in court).

(3) Summary of Nonindicted 8’s statement

(A) On August 27, 1996, the face-to-face face with the defendant was not directly viewed by the victim 2. The victim 2 entered the sick room immediately immediately after that, in order for the victim 2 to close the door to close the door, and the victim 2 to look at the victim 2, the door was locked, but the door was locked, but it was called that she opened the door in the state of continuous drinking, where she continued to do so (the police statement dated August 27, 1997).

(B) On August 27, 1996, when the victim 2 met the defendant, he was in the sick room. The victim 2 identified the defendant as a criminal who was "responding from the beginning when the patient was hospitalized in the patient room at the above face-to-face transfer hospital (the victim 2 re-resumed that the victim 2 was asked after his mind at the time two to four days after the accident occurred). The victim 2 told the police officer when the victim 2 speaks (the sixth trial date's statement).

(4) Summary of Nonindicted 6’s statement in court

On August 23, 1996, when the victim 2 first appeared at the hospital, the victim 2 was called the victim 2 as the victim 'Adoz.', and at that time the police officers appeared to talk about the talk (the statement at the sixth trial date).

3. Each statement made by the head of a leapju, gambling, painting, lighting, lighting, and Kimju;

The fire officer who extinguishmented the instant fire at the time of the instant fire and saved the victim 2, the stuffed fire officer in charge of the field investigation after participating in the said suppression process, the Jin Park was in charge of the on-site investigation. The Jin Park Jae-won was a resident who was living on the upper floor (fourth floor) of the victim 1, the Jin-won was in charge of the instant crime, and the Jin-won was in the second floor below the second floor (second floor), and the Jinin-in-si stated at the investigative agency their own opinions before and after the instant crime. The evidence as to each of these statements is evidence of the witness leinism among the fourth trial records, the witness leinism among the fifth trial records, the preparation of each statement made by the prosecutor and senior judicial police officer in charge of administrative affairs, the entry of each statement made by the Jin-style, the Jin-in-style, the inspection and the preparation of the Jin-style statement made by each of the following.

A. Summary of statements in leapmonism

On August 23, 1996, at the end of 00:35 minutes, the fire report was received, immediately called at the situation room of Yongsan Fire Station, and at around 00:39, six persons, including the chief of the National Fire Station and the chief of the National Fire Station, arrive at the scene of 0:39, were incidental to the knife. He was able to knife the knife.e., the knife after having knife the knife and knife the knife and knife the knife.e., the knife., the knife.e., the knife., the knife., the knife.e., the knife., the knife., the knife.e., the knife., the knife, the knife.

(b) A summary of the statement of stuffs;

As a result of the investigation of a fire site, it is identical to the statement of leapinism, but the fire accident was judged to be the case of intentionally setting fire at the inside of the house. The majority of the criminal was the room where the victim was the dead body of the victim, and the fire time was presumed to be 00:30 on August 23, 1996 (the first prosecutor's statement) or 5 to 10 minutes prior to the fire report (the second prosecutor's statement) on August 23, 1996. After the on-site investigation, the fire time was presumed to be 0:0 on August 23, 1996. After the on-site investigation, it was asked the victim 2 as to who was the victim, and the "Issssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss.

C. The summary of the present statement

1996. 8. 22. 21:20경까지 자신이 동생들과 거실에서 TV연속극을 보고난 직후 아래층에서 여자의 고함소리가 들리고 아이의 자지러지는 울음소리가 나면서 머리가 벽에 부딪치는 소리가 쿵쿵 수차례 들리다가 몇 분 후 조용해졌다. 처음에는 아래층 여자가 딸을 심할 정도로 때리는 것으로 생각하였으나 여자의 고함소리와 쿵쿵하는 소리도 들려 여자가 누군가와 다투는 것으로 생각하였다. 남자의 목소리는 듣지 못하였으나 여자가 대들며 발악하는 듯한 고함소리가 들려 누군가 더 있다는 느낌이 들었다. 고모 조용순이 익일 00:20∼30경 집에 들어오면서 무슨 타는 냄새가 난다 "뭐 태워먹었냐"고 물어보았고, 잠시 후 고모가 목욕탕에 들어갔다가 갑자기 연기가 난다면서 나와 주방의 창문을 통하여 밑을 내다보니 연기가 나오고 있었다. 고모와 동생들과 함께 급히 밖으로 나와 아래층으로 내려 갔더니 3층 현관문에서 시커먼 연기가 새어나오고 있었고, 어린애가 문을 두드리며 울면서 "문열어 주세요."라고 말하고 있었다. 자신들이 문을 열려고 하니 잠겨 있어 어린애에게 잠금장치를 돌려보라고 말을 하여도 문을 열지 못하자 할 수 없이 밖으로 나와 사촌동생 임정혜가 119에 신고를 하여 몇 분 후 소방차들이 왔다. 불이 난 시간은 고모가 올라올 때 타는 냄새가 났다는 말을 한 것으로 보아 00:20경인 것으로 생각한다.

(d) A summary of the statement in the light;

1996. 8. 22. 23:50경 자신이 경영하는 근처 비디오가게 문을 닫고 걸어서 집으로 왔다(걸어서 약 10∼15분 정도 되는 거리인데 오다가 슈퍼에서 샴푸를 샀다). 3층에 있는 피해자 1의 집 앞을 지나가는데 현관문이 안에서 불빛이 보일 정도로 약간 열려 있었고 어디선가 타는 냄새가 났는데 연기가 나오는 것은 보지 못하였다. 자신이 집에 들어와 잠시 쉬다가 샤워를 하기 위하여 목욕탕에 들어가니 목욕탕 창문 사이로 연기가 올라와서 다시 뛰어나와 밖을 내다 보니 3층의 주방창문을 통하여 연기가 나오고 있었다. 급히 아이들하고 3층에 내려왔는데 안에 어린애가 있었고, 자신은 1, 2층 집에 벨을 눌러 주고 나서 3층에서 아이와 현관문을 사이에 두고 이야기를 하였는데, 아이는 계속하여 안에서 문을 밀고 흔들면서 "문열어 주세요."라고 하고 있었고, 자신은 현관문을 열려고 하니 안에서 잠겨 있어서 문꼭지를 돌리라고 말하였는데도 아이가 문만 밀면서 열지 못하여 119에 신고하였다(아이가 문을 치면서 밀어 문이 조금 흔들렸는데 아마 당황해서 열지 못한 것 같다). 평소에 피해자 1과 수도요금을 함께 냈는데 그녀는 돈계산을 철저하게 하였으며, 피해자 2는 주거지인 4층 다세대주택의 아래층부터 옥상까지 왔다갔다 하면서 보는 사람마다 인사를 하였고 똑똑한 애였다.

E. Summary of the statement by Kim Jong-ju

1996. 8. 22. 20:30경 무렵 처와 함께 귀가하던 길에 집앞에서 피해자 2를 보았는데, 다세대주택 출입구 앞 도로 중앙에 피해자 2가 발을 구르며 울고 있고 3층 도로변 창문쪽에서 그 엄마가 "미나끼"라고 부르면서 빨리 들어오라 하는 것을 보고 먼저 집으로 들어갔다. 3층에서의 쿵쿵소리는 9시 뉴스를 약 15분 정도 보다가 컴퓨터를 하러 작은 방에 들어간 지 약 5∼10분이 경과한 후(약 21:20경)에 난 것으로 기억하는데, 아이가 침대 위에서 방바닥으로 뛰어내리는 듯한 쿵쿵 소리가 수회 정도 약간의 간격을 두고 들렸다. 싸움소리나 비명소리는 듣지 못하였다.

4. The evidence regarding the defendant's status.

As evidence of the defendant's body, each statement of the type of witness in the fourth trial record, each statement of each type of handling affairs prepared by the prosecutor and judicial police officer (including a copy of each type of examination and treatment), investigation report (272 through 279) and the statement or image of the defendant's body in the form of confirmation of its intention attached thereto, etc. Accordingly, on August 27, 1996, the police at the same time reported that the defendant had a saw country, and there was a saw country and the left part of the barbrow, etc. immediately after the defendant's urgent confinement, and when the defendant diagnoseds it on the right part of the defendant's body, the police at the same time suffered from the front part of the barbrow or the upper part of the bar, the defendant's body at the same time was judged to face with the above saw or the upper part of the barbrow.

5. The evidence related to the relationship between the defendant and one victim.

As evidence concerning financial transactions and other relations between the defendant and the victim, entry of part of the defendant's statement in the second trial records, entry of each of the suspect's interrogation records of the defendant in each prosecutor and judicial police officer's protocol, entry of part of each of the prosecutor's protocol of statement in each prosecutor's and judicial police officer's protocol of statement about non-indicted 3, preparation of the prosecutor's protocol of statement in each of the non-indicted 3's protocol of statement, entry of part of each of the prosecutor's protocol of statement in each of the non-indicted 2's protocol of statement in the judicial police officer's protocol of statement, entry of statement in each of the non-indicted 2's protocol of statement, entry of statement in the protocol of statement in each of the non-indicted 2's protocol of statement, investigation report (Investigation records 132-13, 270-271, 564-576, 592-930, 99-102, 1012-1027).

A. Non-Indicted 2, the mother of the Defendant, was influent with Non-Indicted 1, the mother of the victim 1, and there was money transaction with the victim 1. The Defendant was also aware of the victim 1, including Non-Indicted 2’s house or several times of meetings at the same fraternity group. The victim 1’s phone number was indicated in the Defendant’s call number, and the Defendant had conversationsd with the victim 1 on May 2, 1996 at two occasions on May 2, 1996, and once on May 3 of the same year with his handphone. In addition, the Defendant and the victim 1 promised only 11 hours at night (in light of the victim’s family record, the victim 1’s family record), and the Defendant, his wife, and Non-Indicted 3, his wife, and his wife, Non-Indicted 4, etc. were visiting the victim 1’s house at the same time to the extent of two to 30 meters from the victim’s house.

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant’s wife, Nonindicted 3, opened in the National Bank at the time of the instant case, has four deposits, including one household monetary trust account (number omitted), three savings deposit passbooks, and two savings deposit passbooks at the time of deposit amounting to KRW 59 million are opened and traded in the name of the victim 1, and all of the opening dates. The deposit passbook (Account Number omitted) used directly by Nonindicted 3 was opened on April 8, 1993. The opening date of the passbook (Account Number omitted) was June 30, 1995. The Defendant was a passbook in the name of the wife opened on June 30, 195 at the time of the instant case, and was automatically borrowed KRW 50 million by the method of September 25, 1995.

C. In other words, the Defendant used 22,320,40 won through 33 times from July 19, 195 to May 6, 1996 with credit cards issued at the time of opening the passbook as of June 30, 1995 (part of Nonindicted 3 appears to have been used). The Defendant borrowed KRW 8 million from the victim 1, who was known of ordinary party due to such obligation, to the cashier’s checks, and immediately exchanged the amount of KRW 1,00,000 at the time of the National Bank after the National Bank and then exchanged the amount of KRW 5,10,000,000 for checks at KRW 5,50,000,000,000 for the check at KRW 4,50,000 for the credit card payment at KRW 4,50,000,000 for the check at KRW 18,418,000,000 for the remainder of the credit card payment.

D. Meanwhile, on April 8, 1995, the Defendant had been engaged in indoor events from the time when he was married with Nonindicted 3 on April 8, 1995. The monthly income was 200 to 2.5 million won in the sex season ( spring, Ga), and 1 million won in the non-receiving period (7 to 8, 1 through 2). In addition, from January 1, 1996, the Defendant received a request for indoor musical events, etc. with only telephone call at the Lee Jae-sung office. The Defendant used the credit card as above under such financial situation, and received the masp loan loan. Accordingly, the Defendant was urged to pay the credit card use amount of KRW 10 million in excess of KRW 1,50,000 in the instant case, and the Defendant received the repayment of the loan amount of KRW 1 million in excess of KRW 5 million in the loan amount of KRW 1,500,000 in the instant case.

E. Meanwhile, on August 22, 1996, when the National Bank of Korea, which was in charge of the credit card chain management, was found to have been in arrears with the amount equivalent to the national card use amount of Nonindicted 3 at the time of the instant case, and the bank was suspended from payment on the same day on the same day (However, there is no evidence to prove that the above suspension of payment was notified to Nonindicted 3 or the Defendant, or that the actual owner of the said deposit was notified to him of the fact that he was the victim).

6. Other evidence corresponding to the facts charged.

A. Each part of the statements of the defendant, non-indicted 3, and 2

Article 1. 2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant's statement was partially recorded in the suspect's interrogation protocol of each of the defendant 2, the prosecutor and the judicial police officer's 7th statement of this case (the defendant was recorded in the third statement of August 28, 1996, part of the defendant's written statement of this case) and the defendant's statement of this case 1:00 and around 21:0, respectively. (2) The defendant was released from each of the above facts of this case's 9:61 of the defendant's statement of this case and 9:61 of the defendant's statement of this case (the defendant's statement of this case was recorded in the defendant's second statement of this case) and 9.1 of the defendant's statement of this case, which was recorded in the victim's first half to 9:61 of the defendant's statement of this case, and 9.2 of the defendant's statement of this case's first half to 9:6.

(b) Each statement made by Kimsung, Yokok, Yak-si, Yak-si, and Yhee;

According to the statements of Kim Sung-sung, Hwang-Sa, and Park Jong-hee, the victim 2 had at (name omitted) kindergarten from March 8, 1996 to May 1, 196, and had at (name omitted) childcare center for two years prior to the time of the instant case, and at the time of the instant case, personal visit instruction (Korean language, study), and other learning guidance is being reading, etc., the young children were under considerable education. In addition, the victim 2 was seen to express his own will rapidly and clearly compared to other young children of the same time at the time of the instant case. According to the statements of Emba (the owner of the building at the scene of the accident), the victim 2 participated in the police investigation of the police station on September 9, 1996, and made a statement at the same time and made a statement at the same time that the victim 2 was able to take part in the investigation of the accident and made a statement at the same time, and thus, the defendant's credibility is found to be followed by each other person's statement.

C. Evidence on the result of damage

According to the records, etc. of the autopsy report prepared by the head of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, which is attached to the autopsy report prepared by the head of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, on the victim 1 of the same research institute, the statement of the autopsy report prepared with respect to the victim 2 of the research institute, the highest consent of the doctor, and the written statement of the written diagnosis of injury bound in Chapter 705 of the investigation records, etc., the victim 1 discovered after the death in the fire in this case shall be deemed to have died of two parts, such as multiple cerebral brains, two pelles, etc., and the possibility of corrosion by light pressure shall not be excluded. The victim 2 discovered at the same site after the death in this case shall be deemed to have been caused by the above damage. The victim 2 suffered from the injury, such as the victim's house in this case and the house in this case and the house in this case, and the fire in this case shall be deemed to have been considerably equivalent to 95 million won.

D. Determination on other evidence

Each statement made by a prosecutor and a senior judicial police officer concerning Kim Jong-hwan in the preparation of a written statement of statement, each statement made by a prosecutor (not more than 1284 of investigation records), each statement made by a prosecutor (not more than 1284 of investigation records), each statement made by a senior judicial police officer, and each statement made by a senior judicial police officer (not more than Chapter 652 of investigation records, not more than Chapter 706) are admissible as evidence, since it is not recognized to be authentic by a statement made by the person making the original statement at the preparatory hearing or on the public trial, and the evidence submitted in this case

7. Judgment on the evidence opposed to the facts charged

A. Summary of the defendant's statement changed

(1) 사건 당일의 행적：1996. 8. 22. 9:00경 장모 공소외 2, 처남 공소외 9 부부가 쌍문동에 있는 처형 공소외 4의 집에 집들이 음식장만을 도와주러 간 이후 자신은 계속 집에 있다가 11:00경 공소외 1이 고추장 단지를 가지러 왔길래 이를 공소외 1 집에 자신의 승용차로 실어다 준 후 바로 집에 돌아와 그때부터 다시 처자와 함께 집에 있었다. 같은 날 21:00경 9시 뉴스 시작하고 잠시 후 그날 처로부터 햄버거와 사과가 먹고 싶다는 말을 들은 기억이 나 자주색 반바지와 흰색 소매없는 티셔츠를 입고 처에게 그냥 나갔다 오겠다고 하고 집에서 나와 제일은행 앞에서 택시를 타고 남영동 하디스 앞에서 내려 햄버거 1개를 사고, 다시 택시를 타고 제일은행 앞에서 내려 후암시장의 과일가게에 가서 사과 2천 원 어치를 산 다음 다시 제일은행을 거쳐 집으로 가는 길의 동네 정육점에서 아기 이유식용으로 소고기 반근을 갈아서 사 가지고 21:30(또는 21:40)경 집에 도착하였다. 햄버거는 처가 먹었고 사과는 깎아서 같이 먹었으며 소고기는 밤톨만하게 랩으로 싸서 냉장고에 보관하였고, 그 후 아기와 놀기도 하고 주로 컴퓨터가 있는 방에서 컴퓨터게임(카드놀이)을 하였다. 자정 무렵 장모, 처남, 처남댁이 돌아와 이야기 몇마디 하다가 각자 방으로 들어가 다음날인 8. 23. 01:00경 잤다. 02:00경(또는 02:30경) 자고 있는데 사고소식을 알리는 전화가 와 장모가 파출소로 갔고 처남이 따라 나갔다. 자신이 무슨 내용인지 처남댁에 물어보니 피해자 1이 죽었다고 하여 이 사건을 알게 되었고, 장모 등이 파출소에 갈 때 자신은 따라 나가지 않은 것 같다.

(2) 몸에 난 상처：머리에 난 상처는 1996. 8. 24. 11:00경 걸음마 단계인 아들이 응접실 의자를 잡고 옆걸음 하다 의자와 넘어지는 것을 보고 아이를 붙잡다가 자신도 넘어져 탁자 밑 나무에 부딛쳐 생긴 것이다. 왼쪽 팔과 겨드랑이는 같은 해 8. 21. 17:30경 반바지에 런닝셔츠를 입고서 지붕을 타고 올라가 안테나 선을 더 높게 연결하기 위해 위로 팔을 뻗다 안테나 모서리 내지 안테나에 감긴 철사에 긁힌 것이다. 오른팔 팔굼치 윗부분은 안테나를 교정하고 다시 거꾸로 지붕을 타고 기어 대추나무 밑으로 내려오다가 가지에 긁힌 것이다. 앞가슴과 목부위에 난 상처는 같은 해 8. 20. 밤 12시경 잠자리에서 자신이 처의 음부를 입으로 빨며 성행위를 하려고 하자 처가 빨지 못하도록 뿌리치면서 난 것이다. 왼쪽 눈가 부위의 상처에 대하여는 모르겠다.

(3) The relationship with the victim 1: The victim 1 had been on his own house 2, around September 195 1, 1995 2. On February 196, 196, he again stated the number of 10 ophones and ophones and ophones that he want to repay 10 ophones and ophones and ophones and ophones and 10 ophones and 10 ophones and 10 ophones and 6 ophones and 10 o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o's o'.

(4) The obligation relationship: (a) at the time of the instant case, even though partial payment of the credit card usage amount was made, the obligation to use the card again was about KRW 9 million,00,000,000,000,000,000 won, including the unpaid amount of KRW 7,000,000,000; and (b) at the time of maturity of KRW 5,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 was extended by the passbook in the name of Nonindicted 3. On the other hand, around December 1995, it was known that the card use statement, etc., where Nonindicted 10 was living in the card company, was applied for the change of address to Seongbuk-gu, Seoul High-gu, Seoul High-dong (detailed address omitted) where Nonindicted 10 was living in the card company. However, due to his credit card payment delay, the victim was unable to know the fact that the victim’s name was suspended from payment due to his own name.

B. Evidence consistent with the Defendant’s statement

피고인의 처인 공소외 3은 피고인의 위 가.항의 (1) 사건 당일의 행적, (2) 몸에 난 상처, (4) 피고인의 채무관계 등에 대하여 피고인의 진술과 거의 일치하는 진술을 하고 있고, 피고인의 처남 공소외 9, 처형 공소외 4, 처남댁 공소외 11은 피고인의 위 가.의 (1)의 변소와 관련하여 일부 피고인의 진술을 뒷받침하는 진술들을 하고 있다. 그 밖에 피고인의 행적에 관한 각 수사보고서(수사기록 598∼599장, 621∼622장, 과일가게 주인인 이선자, 박재명 부부와 정육점 주인인 박근순을 상대로 한 수사보고서)의 기재 등이 일부 피고인의 진술을 뒷받침하는 듯이 보인다.

C. Determination on the credibility of counter evidence

(1) On the day of the instant case, there is only a fact that the Defendant sent out at around 11:0 p.m. and around 9:0 p.m. on the day of the instant case, and there is no evidence to support each of the instant crimes, but there is no reliable evidence to support each of the instant criminal acts (the contents of each of the instant investigation reports do not contain any particular content that the Defendant may have known that he will go to the Defendant, although the main and the main and the main owners of the static landings are too small to go to the Defendant,). In particular, regarding the going out on the day after 9:0 p.m., as to how the Defendant got to go to the river in the south-dong zone, the Defendant also did not have any statement about how he sawed to the police on October 20, 1998, and there was no statement about how he sawd to go to the Defendant on the day of the first statement by the police and the Defendant on August 27, 1998.

(2) The Defendant made a vindication as to his superior position, and Nonindicted 3 made a statement consistent with its contents. However, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant’s each of the above statements made on the part of the Defendant’s saw that the Defendant’s saw it to have been caused by the same circumstances as the above saws for the Defendant’s saw, that it was extremely exceptional that the above saws occurred at the same time due to different circumstances around the instant time. According to the images of photographs attached to the investigation report (Investigation Records 272-279) as seen earlier, even though the parts of the left eyebrow on the face of the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 did not explain the circumstances where she was faced with the me, the probative value of the evidence on the Defendant’s wife cannot be reduced by examining all of the above statements by the Defendant and Nonindicted 3 as they did not have credibility.

(3) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, with respect to the relationship with the victim 1, the Defendant indirectly known the victim’s personal phone or call, and instead, indirectly known the victim’s personal phone, Nonindicted 2, etc. However, even though it was revealed that the Defendant borrowed KRW 8 million from the victim 1, the Defendant denied all the above facts (the investigation report of Chapters 592 through 594 of the investigation record) until the fact was discovered by using his handphones (the investigation report of Chapters 404, 630, 646, 661, and 923 of the investigation record), and reconvened it (the investigation record). Moreover, even though the Defendant was merely aware of the relationship with the said victim, such as his own vindication, it is difficult to understand that the Defendant borrowed KRW 8 million from the street, the Defendant borrowed the said victim’s personal phone or 8 million.

(4) In relation to the fact that the defendant alleged that he was unaware of the fact that the payment of the victim 1's deposit was suspended due to the delinquency in his credit card use payment obligation, this court is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant or the victim 1 knew of the fact that the above deposit was suspended on August 22, 1996 on the day of the case. However, even so, on the day of the instant case, it is difficult to recognize the fact that the defendant did not pay the overdue amount of his credit card use payment obligation and did not reach the fact that he talked with the victim 1 who was in a usual monetary transaction relationship with the victim 1 and the victim 1, who was in a special relationship with the victim 3, due to such problems.

(5) In addition, the defendant's statement that the victim 2 made himself/herself as a criminal is aware of her son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son.

(6) As above, Non-Indicted 3, 9, 4, and 11 who seem to support the Defendant’s statement and part of the statement do not have any reasonable doubt in finding the Defendant guilty of the instant criminal facts because all of the statements lack rationality and credibility.

8. Conclusion

In full view of the evidence as follows, the facts constituting the crime in the judgment are proved.

(1) The defendant's partial statements in the first and second trial records are written.

(2) Each statement of the victim 2, Masio Gas Laborian, witness leaps and types in the fourth protocol of the trial, Non-Indicted 1 (except for the part not partially trusted) and Gain's respective statements in the fifth protocol of the trial, among the third protocol of the trial.

(3) Each protocol of interrogation of the defendant prepared by the prosecutor

(4) Each statement written by the prosecutor about Mussiogasno (including part of the victim’s statement made by the victim’s 2), Nonindicted 1, leapju, Gain, Gain, Cho Jae-in, Cho Jae-ju, Cho Jong-ju, Kim Jong-ju, type (including a copy of the examination and treatment set up by the Dong), Cho Jae-hun, and Nonindicted 3 (part of the statement written by the defendant) shall be written.

(5) Each protocol of interrogation of the accused in preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers and the third protocol of statement dated August 28, 1996, written on each of the three statements made by the defendant.

(6) Each statement made by the judicial police officer on Mussia (including the part of each statement written by the victim 2, non-indicted 1, and 8), non-indicted 1, leapju, gambling materials, sculptures, lighting, illumination, type, Kimju, Kim Sung, Kim Jong-kak, yellow, dominton, dominton, dominton, 3 (part of part of the statement), and 2 (part of the statement) of each statement of statement.

(7) Each statement of the Defendant (part of the record), Park Jae-in, and Yellow Restatement

(8) Each investigation report on the statement made by the victim 2 (including investigation records from 153 to 154, Chapters 157, 168 to 169, Chapters 198 to 200, and Chapters 595 to 597), investigation report on the defendant's standing (including investigation records from 272 to 279, confirmation of the preparation of a type of intent, and photographs taken on the defendant's standing), each investigation report on the defendant's financial transaction and liability relation (including investigation records from 132 to 133, Chapters 270 to 271, Chapters 564 to 576, Chapters 592 to 594, Chapters 92 to 594, Chapters 92 to 930, Chapters 99 to 102, Chapters 1012 to 1027) and each of the above photographs, respectively.

(9) The statement of the autopsy report with respect to the victim 1, which is prepared by the head of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, attached to the autopsy report prepared by the head of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation, and the statement of the written autopsy report with respect to the victim 2, each written statement of the written diagnosis with respect to the death of the victim 2, each written statement of the written diagnosis with respect to the death of the victim

(10) There are 1 books of household (No. 2), 8 million won cashier's checks (No. 32571765), 1 million won cashier's checks (No. 4), 4 (No. 5), 5 million won cashier's checks (No. 42807160-3) issued after the National Bank.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

The occupation of murder: Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act

The attempted murder: Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act

The occupation of the suspender building and fire prevention: Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Selection of punishment;

Each life-saving type choice

3. Handling concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment prescribed for the most severe crime of murder and homicide)

Reasons for sentencing

피고인은 무분별한 신용카드사용 등으로 금전적 어려움에 처하게 되자 판시 범죄사실과 같이 피해자 1을 찾아가 금원차용 등의 문제로 다투다가 동녀를 살해하였다. 피고인은 또한 아무 것도 모르는 피해자 2마저 범행현장에 있었다는 이유만으로 동녀의 목을 조르고 머리를 찧는 등의 방법으로 동녀를 살해하고자 하였다. 나아가 피고인은 가까운 거리에 있던 자신의 집에 가 있다가 죄증을 인멸하기 위하여 범행현장에 다시 돌아와 방화를 하고 강도의 소행으로 위장한 파렴치한 짓도 저질렀다.

The victim 1 was a young female with 28 years of age who was employed in the past to lele against foreigners, and was in the region of Masio Gas No. Ma. Masa who was a Japanese business with limited liability in the past. After her marriage awareness and tending home, the victim 1 was seriously killed by the Defendant while she was living together with his or her son and her son 2 who was suffering from sexual intercourse. In addition, not only the victim 2 was able to be killed by the Defendant, but also the victim 2 was slicked by her own eye and her mother was slicked, and again she was detained in the house due to the Defendant’s fire, again she was slick and suffering from shock and pain because of 4 years of age and 6 months of age, such as she was fluening with a dog, who was flue with a view to raising his or her marriage and growing his or her family.

Nevertheless, the defendant asserts that he is only the only witness living in the scene of the crime and that he is the victim who is the victim, and that he is the victim, and that he is the offender, it is only aware of her child. Despite the victim's statement and all evidence supporting the victim's statement, there is no light that he is completely divided even after the crime.

In addition, although a person who graduated from a music college and engages in indoor music event business is living without any minor record of fine until the transfer of the instant case, such fact does not have any particular meaning in determining the punishment for the same crime as the instant case. However, in light of the background, method, etc. of the instant crime, the court shall consider that the Defendant did not attempt to kill the victims under a secret plan from the advance. Furthermore, taking into account the above sentencing conditions, the Defendant shall be sentenced to imprisonment for life.

Parts of innocence

이 사건 공소사실 중 현주건조물방화치상의 점의 요지는, 피고인 이 판시 범죄사실 제3항 기재와 같이 불을 놓아 사람이 주거에 사용하는 건조물을 소훼함으로써 피해자 2로 하여금 약 4주간의 치료를 요하는 좌측 상지 및 양측 하지 등에 2∼3도의 화염 화상 등을 입게 한 것이라고 함에 있으므로 살피건대, 현주건조물방화치상죄와 같이 결과로 인하여 형이 중한 죄에 있어서 그 결과의 발생을 예견할 수 없었을 때에는 중한 죄로 벌할 수 없다 할 것인바, 위에서 본 각 증거들에 의하면 피고인은 판시 범죄사실 제2항과 같이 피해자 2를 살해하고자 동녀의 목을 양손으로 누르고 머리를 벽 등에 찧어 동녀가 기절하여 쓰러지자 이를 죽은 것으로 오인하고 그 장소에서 나간 사실을 인정할 수 있을 뿐이고, 이와 달리 피고인이 피해자 2가 살아 있다는 사실을 알고서 자신의 방화행위로 동녀가 상해를 입으리라는 것을 예견하면서도 위 제3항 기재와 같이 불을 놓았다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없으므로 위 현주건조물방화치상의 점은 범죄의 증명이 없는 경우에 해당하나 이와 일죄의 관계에 있는 판시 현주건조물방화죄를 유죄로 인정한 이상 따로 주문에서 무죄를 선고하지 아니한다.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)