beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person who requested an attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) were the victim who was written on the floor, and the victim was dead and reported on the following day, and did not murder the victim.
2) Inasmuch as the lower court, without direct evidence, found the Defendant guilty on the part of the indirect evidence without any evidence, the lower court violated the rules of evidence.
B. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, the Defendant’s intentional murder is sufficiently recognized.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (12 years of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. 1) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts (A) Determination of the Defendant’s assertion ought to be based on evidence with probative value sufficient for a judge to have the conviction that the facts charged are true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt.
However, such a conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, and it is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value for a crime individually, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the whole evidence under mutual relation and have such probative value.
If deemed by indirect evidence, facts constituting a crime can be found (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do8869 Decided September 26, 2014). (2) According to the result of the autopsy conducted by the Daejeon Science Investigation and Investigation Institute of the Victims, the lower court determined that the private person of the victim was two inner parts and chest damage. The above damage was presumed to be a result of a diversified effect, and the result of inquiry into the facts of the above research institute was presumed to be a result of the victim’s injury. The victim’s injury was merely limited in light of the victim’s injury and degree, etc.