(a) The nature of the crime of murder, where it is left unattended without preventing any danger to the person under confinement;

(b) A case where there was no negligence of murder;

(c) Where a minor was not involved in the abduction and inducement, but has participated in the act of demanding a bribe with the minor's knowledge of the fact thereafter, whether such act constitutes an accessory crime under Article 5-2 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes;

A. If a person under confinement merely maintains his/her condition after inducing a minor to kill him/her, the Defendant’s liability constitutes a crime of death by neglecting the person under confinement without preventing the occurrence of danger to the person under confinement, even though he/she only maintains his/her condition, the Defendant’s omission is sufficient to be assessed as satisfying the constituent elements of the crime of murder, and thus, constitutes a crime of murder by omission.

B. If the victim entices the victim into an apartment, strings both hacks and hacks the two hacks by breaking them into the strings, breaking them into the strings, and then breaking the hacks into the hacks. The hacks of hacks into the hacks of the hacks, breaking them into the hacks of the hacks of the hacks, and breaking them into the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the hacks of the h.

C. The crime under Article 5-2 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a simple crime which combines the acquisition of, or demand for, goods or profits on property by taking advantage of concerns over the parents of the kidnapped or induced minor under Article 287 of the Criminal Act, or other persons who threaten the safety of the minor. Thus, even though other persons did not participate in the kidnapped act, the crime is an accessory to the crime under Article 5-2 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, in a case where the kidnapped minor takes part in the act of acquiring or demanding goods or profits on property by taking advantage of concerns over the parents of the kidnapped minor or other persons who are threatening to ensure the safety of the minor, and aids and abets the act by taking advantage of such concerns, the crime is not a subsidiary to the act of demanding goods, etc., but is a comprehensive crime.

(a)Article 250(a) of the Criminal Code; Article 281(c) Article 5-2(2)1 of the Act on Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes; Article 287 of the Criminal Code;

A and one other

Defendants

Attorneys B and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 82No831 delivered on July 9, 1982

All of the defendants' appeals are dismissed.

75 days of detention prior to the rendering of a judgment shall be included in the principal sentence against Defendant C.

1. We examine Defendant A’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal by the Defendant’s defense counsel

In light of the records, among the evidence of the court of first instance that the court below maintained, the statement of the written autopsy report prepared by D from among the evidence of the court of first instance, and the fact that the evidence was seized (Evidence No. 12), and the fact that the confession of the defendant is true, can be reinforced evidence supporting the truth of the confession of the defendant. Thus, the court of first instance did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the measures taken by the victim E to find the facts that the victim E died due to the appearance of the reasons and reasons as stated in its decision, and did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the preparation of evidence and the process of fact-finding.

In addition, if the defendant's death was caused by the death of the person under confinement even though he had induced the minor at the time of the original confinement, the defendant's liability for the crime is limited to the death resulting from death, such as the theory of lawsuit. However, if the defendant died by neglecting the person under confinement without preventing the occurrence of danger, it is sufficient to evaluate that the omission of the defendant satisfies the elements of the crime of murder, and thus, the defendant's so-called "the crime of murder by omission" should be deemed to constitute the crime of murder by omission.

However, according to the facts maintained by the lower court and the lower court’s judgment, the Defendant: around 17:30 on November 13, 1980, enticed the victim E to the apartment of the first instance court; applied the two fingers and sprinks to the strings; attached two strings to the strings; strings and strings on the strings of both strings to the strings; 3rding the strings on the face to the 15th of the same month; and 07:30 on the 15th of the same month while entering the 20th of the same year, the Defendant did not remove the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3th of the 1980th of the 196th of the 1st of the 196th of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the death.

Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance, which maintained the judgment of the court below that applied the so-called "the defendant's so-called "the crime of murder," which did not prevent the occurrence of danger due to his own act, to the effect that the defendant failed to meet the elements of the crime of murder. Thus, the judgment of the court below which maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which applied the so-called "the defendant's so-called "the crime of murder" to the crime of murder falling under Article 5-2 (2) 2 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes

(2) As to ground of appeal No. 2

Examining all the circumstances that may serve as the condition for the sentencing of this case by the record, the sentence of the first instance court maintained by the court below is acceptable and, even considering the circumstances cited in the arguments, it is not deemed that the sentence is extremely unfair.

2. We examine Defendant C’s grounds of appeal.

(1) On the first ground for appeal by the Defendant’s defense counsel

It is reasonable to view that the crime under Article 5-2 (2) 1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a crime combining the act of kidnapping and inducing a minor under Article 287 of the Criminal Act, the act of acquiring or demanding property or profits on property by taking advantage of the fear of the parents of the kidnapped or induced minor, or of other person who is a threat to the safety of the minor. Thus, even though other person did not participate in the act of kidnapping and inducing a minor, if other person was involved in the act of taking advantage of the fear of the kidnapped or induced minor's parents or other person who is a threat to the safety of the minor and aiding and abetting the act of taking advantage of the fear of the other person's acquisition or demanding of property benefits, the act of demanding property, etc. merely becomes an accessory to the act of demanding property, etc., but it is reasonable to rate the crime as a accessory to the crime of Article 5-2

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that ruled that Defendant C’s so-called, who aided and abetted the crime of violation of Article 5-2(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, with the awareness that Defendant A had induced a minor E, was an accessory to the crime of violation of Article 5-2(2)1 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as to the accessories such as theory of lawsuit or by applying the statutes.

(2) As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal and the second ground of appeal by his defense counsel

In this case where a sentence of imprisonment for a short term of three years or a maximum of five years has been imposed, the reason that the amount of punishment is excessive cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed in entirety, and the part of the number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of judgment is included in the original sentence against Defendant C. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)