2020No526 A. Special Violence, etc.

(b) Concealment of evidence;

(c) Special assault;

1.(c) A

2.2.B

3.2. C.

4. (b) D.

Defendants and Prosecutor

Mahoho Lake, Hawho (prosecutions) and Kim Jong-Gyeong (Public trial)

Law Firm LLC (For the defendant)

Attorney Kim Jong-soo, and Kang-soo

Law Firm Gangnam (LLC) (For the defendant)

Attorney Lee Jae-chul

Law Firm East (for defendant D)

Attorney Kim Yong-Un

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2019Gohap113, 825 (Consolidated) Decided February 18, 2020

Resolution

August 27, 2020

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1)

1) Reasons for appeal by the Defendants

A) The assertion that a public prosecution procedure is invalid in violation of the provisions of law

The investigation agency only investigated the victims (the 32 years old), and did not secure and submit the CCTV on the third floor of the NA that had been recorded prior to the victim’s death. The prosecutor’s decision on the amendment of the indictment issued on December 17, 2019 and the decision on the amendment of the indictment issued on January 21, 2020 by the lower court on January 21, 2020, did not have the identity of the basic facts between the facts charged prior to and after the amendment, and infringed the defendants’ right to defense and prompt trial as a malicious delay in trial. Ultimately, the prosecutor violated the prosecutor’s objective duty and violated the provisions on the amendment of the indictment.

Therefore, in this case, since the procedure of prosecution is invalid in violation of the provisions of the law, the dismissal of public prosecution should be sentenced.

B) Exclusion of the admissibility of illegally collected evidence

(1) On May 5, 2018, when an investigative agency executed a warrant of search and seizure at N and executed a warrant of search and seizure at N on March 10, 2018, video (Evidence No. 112 CDs; hereinafter “the video of this case”) does not constitute “goods to be seized” as stated in the above warrant of search and seizure, and the above seizure procedure is unlawful.

(2) Considering the video of this case as the date of photographing the video of this case, there is no relation to the "criminal facts" as stated in the above search and seizure warrant, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence for recognizing a special crime of death resulting from violence (2019Dahap113, hereinafter the case number is omitted).

(3) Since the video of this case was seized in relation to the crime of special assault, it is not permissible to use it as evidence for the conviction of a special assault crime (2019 Gohap825, hereinafter the case number is omitted) as evidence.

2) Defendant A’s grounds for appeal

A) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to special assault crimes

The Defendant merely dumpeded the victim at a minor level by leading the victim in order to discipline him/her, in order to conduct acts such as obscenity and watching obscene videos.

At the time, the victim was found guilty of a special crime of assault against the defendant, because the victim was driving the plastic case on the head and was not affected by any other shock, it cannot be viewed as a "ditable assault" in a special crime of assault, and it cannot be said that there was no intention of assault against the defendant. In addition, since the command force used by the defendant at the time was used only to the extent that the victim was salved, and there was no possibility of inflicting an injury on the victim, it cannot be viewed as a "hazardous thing". Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of a special crime of assault against the defendant. Thus, the judgment of the court below

B) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of death by special assault

The victim does not have an absolute relation to the defendant. There is no fact that the defendant instructs the victim to translate the English translation of the English language of the law, and there is no other motive or reason to assault the victim. The body of the victim was generated by the object with the mark, such as a solid stamper, and there was no object like the n. There was no continuous assault by the victim. The defendant did not have any continuous assault, and the victim was subject to continuous assault and was presumed to have caused the death of the victim. Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of special assault, and there was an error of misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of legal principles.

C) The argument on unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (seven years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3) Grounds for appeal by Defendant B, C, and D

A) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the crime of concealing evidence

Since the Defendants’ cell phone does not contain any content related to the victim and his death, it cannot be said to be “Evidence” in the crime of concealing evidence. The Defendants’ existing cell phone did not have any content related to the instant case, and all stored materials moved to a new cell phone. Defendant D only lost the Defendants’ previous cell phone and did not have any intention to conceal evidence, and Defendant B, C, etc. conspired with Defendant D to conceal the cell phone. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendants of the facts charged that they concealed the existing cell phone, which is evidence related to the Defendant A’s criminal case, and thus, it erred by misunderstanding of facts and misapprehending of legal principles.

B) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence of the court below (for the defendants, 8 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of legal principles as to admissibility of evidence

Of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the pocketbooks and documents held by Defendant B, C, and D (Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5-7, 14-16, and 27-33, and the list of evidence as copies of each of the above seized articles No. 108, 110, 221, 222, 224, 225, 227-230, hereinafter referred to as the "documents of this case") were lawfully confiscated by a seizure warrant issued as of October 1, 2018 or as of May 10, 2018 (the "first seizure warrant prior to convenience"), and subsequent documents (the "second seizure warrant"). In other words, since the documents of this case indicate that N's members can be identified, the period for seizure of the documents of this case can be seen as the "documents falling under the list of members" as stated in the first seizure warrant.

Even if it cannot be seen as above, the second warrant of seizure stated the process of executing the first warrant of seizure and issued only the instant documents possessed and kept by Defendant B, C, and D. Thus, the seizure of the instant documents based on the second warrant of seizure is lawful.

Even if the seizure of the documents of this case is unlawful, in light of the following: (a) the Defendants sufficiently guaranteed the right of defense in the investigation procedure for the documents of this case; and (b) the documents of this case are serious cases where the victims died; and (c) the essential contents of the criminal facts are included in the documents of this case, the part obtained based on the prosecutor’s examination protocol against the Defendants (hereinafter referred to as “documents of this case and the second evidence”) does not constitute “where the criminal investigation agency’s procedural violation infringes on the substantive contents of due process.” Rather, the exclusion of admissibility of evidence constitutes exceptional cases where the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act establish the procedural provisions for criminal procedure, thereby promoting harmony between the principle of due process and the discovery of substantive truth, and thereby promoting the justice of criminal justice, and thus, its admissibility should be recognized.

Nevertheless, the court below denied the admissibility of the documents, etc. of this case. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on admissibility.

2) misunderstanding of facts (not guilty part of the original judgment)

According to the evidence submitted by the public prosecutor, there were a large number of wood autopsys inside N on September 15, 2018, but on September 16, 2018, in the photographs taken by the police officer dispatched to the site immediately after the victim died, the wood autopsy is not verified, and on October 3, 2018, in the search and seizure conducted on October 3, 2018, a large number of wood autopsys were concealed into N’s seat and disposition, and it is recognized that the documents of this case contain circumstances that the Defendants fabricated the statement about the location and disposition of the wood autopsys. Comprehensively taking account of this, it should be deemed that Defendant B, C, and D conspired to conceal the instant timber and concealed it from September 16, 2018 to September 20:47.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty of the facts charged that the Defendants concealed the instant wooden examination and concealed the evidence. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

3) The allegation of omission in judgment

The lower court omitted the judgment on the confiscation of the instant wooden autopsy against Defendant A.

4) The argument on unreasonable sentencing

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Whether the indictment procedure of this case is invalid in violation of the provisions of Acts

A. Relevant legal principles

A prosecutor may, with permission of the court, add, withdraw, or change facts charged or applicable provisions of Acts stated in the indictment. In this case, the court shall permit it to the extent that the identity of the facts charged is not undermined (Article 298(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act). The identity of the facts charged is maintained if the social factual relations, which form the basis of the facts charged, are the same in basic respect. In determining the identity of such basic facts, the defendant’s act and social factual relations shall be based in mind with the function of identity of such facts, and normative elements shall also be considered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9593, Jun. 24, 2010)

In a case where it is deemed that a prosecutor voluntarily exercised his/her right to institute a public prosecution and gives substantial disadvantage to the defendant, such exercise of the right to institute a public prosecution may be denied as an abuse of the right to institute a public prosecution. However, the arbitrary exercise of the right to institute a public prosecution ought to be limited to the mere negligence in the course of performing his/her duties, and at least dolusence is insufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do1047, Sept. 28, 201

B. Determination

1) The facts charged before and after the amendment of a bill of amendment as stated in the written application for the amendment of a bill of amendment as of December 17, 2019 are the same in that "the victim has continuously suffered physical violence from the defendant A, and the special assault of the defendant A committed between September 16, 2018 and 19:09 as of September 16, 2018." Unlike the facts charged prior to the amendment, the above written application for the amendment of a bill of amendment added points of each special assault as of September 13, 2018 and September 15, 2018. However, unlike the facts charged prior to the amendment, it was merely a embodying continuous violence (refer to the original 17:53) and whether there was continuous violence, and thus, it cannot be said that the defendant's right to defense and right to a prompt trial has been infringed. Furthermore, the court below did not err in its opinion on each of the facts charged as stated in the judgment below.

2) On September 17, 2018, the day following the death of the victim, an investigative agency intended to secure CCTV of the MM building located N, but the manager of the building did not cooperate with the third floor CCTV as maternity.4) On October 11, 2018, an investigative agency determined that the data for CCTV recording was important from September 16, 2018 to 20:53 on September 16, 2018, which was the time when the victim died, and received voluntary submission with the cooperation of FA, the owner of the MM building.5) The aforementioned data was submitted by the Defendants, A, B, and C while submitting the KTX car list, cell phone call records, etc., but the investigation agency did not comply with the aforementioned investigation agency’s duty to investigate the CCTV during the period of time from September 10, 2018 to September 13, 2018, and the Defendants did not have any duty to investigate the CCTV during the aforementioned period of time to avoid any abuse of the CCTV.

3) Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion on this part cannot be accepted in entirety.

3. Whether to admit the admissibility of the instant video and the instant documents, etc.

A. Relevant legal principles

1) In light of the due process and the spirit of warrant requirement to be implemented under the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act, a judge’s text and text to specify “goods to be seized” in issuing a search and seizure warrant shall be strictly interpreted, and it shall not be permitted to expand or analogically interpret the contents unfavorable to the persons subject to search and seizure without permission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do763, Mar. 12, 2009). However, the subject of search and seizure shall not be limited to goods directly related to the criminal facts themselves of the search and seizure warrant, but it may be conducted to the extent that there are considerable grounds to suspect that the criminal facts of the search and seizure warrant and the basic facts are identical or similar to the criminal acts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2649, Jul. 23, 2009).

2) As a matter of principle, search and seizure of digital information by an investigative agency shall be conducted by means of collecting only the part related to a criminal offense on the grounds of issuing a warrant as a document, or copying the relevant file on a portable storage device by the investigative agency. Search and seizure by means of directly shipping the storage device itself or taking the entire electronic files stored in the storage device into the investigative agency office, etc. (hereinafter “duplicated copies”) out of the investigative agency office, etc. is exceptionally permissible only when it is deemed that the method of printing out or copying digital information takes time due to on-site circumstances or mass of digital information, etc., or where technical measures by professionals are necessary, or it is deemed that it is difficult to achieve the purpose of search and seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Order 201Mo1839, Jul. 16, 2015).

3) Article 215(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides, “The public prosecutor may seize, search, or inspect evidence according to a warrant issued by a judge of the competent district court, upon request of the public prosecutor, only when there are circumstances likely to suspect that a suspect has committed a crime if necessary for a criminal investigation.” Therefore, where separate evidence irrelevant to the facts suspected of a crime which was the ground for issuing a warrant is seized, this cannot be used as evidence of conviction in principle.

However, in the case of an offense subject to search and seizure or an offense related thereto, the result of search and seizure may be used as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do11233, Mar. 10, 2016). The crime related to a criminal offense subject to a search and seizure warrant refers to a crime that is objectively related to a criminal offense as stated in the search and seizure warrant, and whose personal relation exists between a person subject to a search and seizure warrant and a criminal suspect. Of these facts, objective relevance to the criminal offense refers to not only cases where the facts of suspicion as stated in the search and seizure warrant are directly related to the same offense, but also cases where indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence can be used to prove the motive, background, means and method of the offense, time and place of the offense, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do2841, Mar. 14, 2019).

4) In principle, evidence collected in violation of the procedures prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be admitted as evidence for conviction, since it does not comply with the lawful procedures prepared to guarantee fundamental human rights. However, if an investigation agency’s evidence collection process-related circumstances, i.e., the purport of the procedural provision and its content and degree of violation, specific course and possibility of evasion, the nature of the right to protect or legal interests; degree of infringement; relevance between the defendant and the defendant; degree of causation between the procedural violation and the collection of evidence; and awareness and intent of the investigation agency, etc., the procedure of the investigation agency does not constitute a violation of the substantive contents of due process; rather, the exclusion of admissibility of evidence does not constitute a violation of the purpose of realizing criminal justice by preparing the procedural provisions related to criminal procedure and promoting harmony between the principle of due process and substantial truth and by promoting this, the court may use it as evidence for conviction. However, if it is exceptional in view of the aforementioned exceptional circumstances, the court should have determined that a prosecutor cannot use it as evidence collected in the process of determining whether the specific case falls under exceptional circumstances (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 107107).

(b) recognised facts;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the court below's and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

1) On October 1, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court judge issued the first warrant of seizure with the name and incompetence, the place to be searched, the Seoul Jongno-gu M building, the fourth N office, and the term of validity until October 14, 2018. The above warrant is indicated as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

2) Around 13:00 on October 3, 2018, the police officers affiliated with the Seoul Guro Police Station and the AO Team (hereinafter referred to as “AO Team”) executed the first warrant of seizure at N around October 3, 2018. In that process, U assistant witnessed part of the instant documents in the presence of Defendant D’s sloping room and the wall slopings attached closely to the sloping room and attached to the sloping room. The police officers affiliated with the AO team had seized the said documents from Defendant D (hereinafter referred to as “the said documents”), and seized the remainder of the documents except the sloping room from Defendant B and C.

The following shall be recorded in the seizure record prepared in relation to the above seizure:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

3) On October 4, 2018, the head of the AO team: (a) proposed an investigation report (related to the execution of a warrant of search and seizure inspection and seized articles) on the following details; (b) obtained approval from the approving authority at around 16:43 of the same day; (c) proposed an investigation report (application for a warrant of search and seizure inspection) around 16:41 of the same day; and (d) obtained approval from the approving authority at around 16:59 of the same day.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

4) On October 4, 2018, the prosecutor of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office requested a warrant of search, seizure, and verification to the Seoul Central District Court on the application of the police's warrant of search, seizure, and verification. On October 5, 2018, the Seoul Central District Court judge issued three copies of the second warrant of seizure on October 5, 2018. The second warrant of seizure contains one document(A4) and two books(A4) stating the relevant contents of the case held and kept by the defendant B, one document(A4) and three books(3 books) stating the documents(A4) and three books(3 books) held and kept by the defendant C, and all documents(A4 paper) stating that the documents(A4 paper), such as documents held and kept by the defendant D, are jointly described as the "place of search, inspection, goods, body, Seoul Jongno Jongno-gu Criminal Police Station's request for search, seizure and verification, and the phrase "office-type 46O and building within Jongno-gu Seoul Central Police Station's office".

5) On October 8, 2018, the police officers affiliated with AO Team visited the above NO’s office and returned the instant documents to Defendant B, C, and D, and immediately executed the second warrant of seizure by way of seizing the instant documents from the said Defendants at the same place.

6) The documents of this case consisting of a printed form A4 form or a pocket book. The contents of the above documents consisting of most of the police officers’ forecast questions, answers thereto, and instructions to cope with police investigations, and some of them include N trainees’ names, such as AP, Q, AR, D, AS, and AT.

7) During the process of executing the first seizure warrant at a place specified in the foregoing paragraph 2, the police officers affiliated with the AO Team were seized by Defendant B, the president, and other information storage media (hereinafter referred to as “NE”). On October 19, 2018, Defendant B participated in the process of sealing the storage media, such as NEE on the same day, and confirmed that there was no error in the seals. Defendant B was notified that he/she would be able to participate in the process of sealing, acquiring copies, searching, copying, and printing the storage media or duplicates, and signed and sealed the “electronic information confirmation (electronic device and storage media release”)” with the content that he/she would not participate in the above process, and around 10,000, AO Team requested digital evidence analysis on NE, etc., and confirmed that there was more than 1,000,000 of the digital information seized and confirmed that there was more than 1,000,0000 of the digital information seized.

C. Whether to recognize the admissibility of the motion picture of this case

In addition to the above facts admitted by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, in light of the relevant legal principles, the following facts and circumstances cannot be deemed to have been found to have violated the warrant requirement, etc., and thus, they can be used as evidence of guilt. Accordingly, the defendants' assertion on this part is without merit.

1) Whether the execution of the first seizure warrant against the video of this case is lawful

① The video of this case is not a member list kept in the N. 2. N. 3. The video of this case is a "electronic information stored in an auxiliary memory medium, such as computers (including attached storage media) and hard disks, which is located in the N. 2. N.

② N office, the execution place of the first seizure warrant, is the place where N agency conducts N agency’s business activities, and more than a number of files were stored in N agency, so there was a concern that if N agency printed out, copied, or n agency collected digital information stored in N agency n agency at the above place, it would cause considerable hindrance to N agency’s business activities. Furthermore, as seen earlier, there was concern about destruction and concealment of evidence as Defendant D, a member of N agency at the time of execution of the first seizure warrant, attempted to conceal the n agency’s s/hetort. Accordingly, the case constitutes “where the original release of stored media is exceptionally permitted.”

③ During the process of seizing the instant videos stored in NF World, the police officers affiliated with AO Team confirmed that Defendant B, the holder of the instant videos, participated in the process of sealing the instant videos, and confirmed that the said Defendant did not have any error in the seals. Although the said Defendant notified the Defendant of his right to participate in the process of acquiring copies of the instant videos, the said Defendant did not participate in the process of acquiring copies, etc., but the said Defendant did not want to participate in the process). On November 26, 2018, the investigative agency extracted and copied the instant videos from NF World, and temporarily returned them to Defendant B, etc. on the 13th of November 2018.

2) Relation to the crime of the first warrant of seizure, the crime of special violence, and the crime of special violence

① The facts constituting the crime stated in the first warrant of seizure are as follows: “The suspect (which was specified as Defendant A) committed continuous assault against the victim, etc., on his/her bridge, or on his/her arms, in such a way that it is impossible to know at a place unknown from the time to September 16, 2018, to September 18, 2018. The suspect caused low blood shock to the victim, thereby causing death at around September 20, 2018.” Since the video of this case has considerable grounds to suspect that it is related to the crime of special assault, which is the same criminal facts or basic facts as the above crimes, the video of this case can be seen as evidence related to special assault.

② Both Defendants showed the video of this case in the course of investigation, and Defendant A asserted that the same content as the video of this case was not constituted a special assault crime as seen earlier in the prosecutor’s investigation. Therefore, the video of this case during the trial date of the case, such as the crime of death by special assault, etc., taking the video of this case as evidence, and subsequently indicted Defendant A as a special assault crime, cannot be deemed unlawful on the ground that the video of this case constitutes separate seizure as to the crime of special assault.

D. Whether the instant documents are admissible as evidence

Further, in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, the seizure of the documents of this case appears to have violated the warrant requirement under the Criminal Procedure Act. The documents of this case, etc. fall under the second evidence obtained based on illegally collected evidence or obtained based on such evidence and all of the evidence should be excluded from the admissibility of evidence. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s allegation in this part is without merit.

1) Whether the seizure of the instant documents is unlawful

① In order to constitute “the membership list kept in the N Office on 2. N Office” among the “goods to be seized” stated in the first warrant of seizure, the main contents of the document must be prepared, including the name, address, contact information, etc. of its members. However, since the document of this case is basically a document that has arranged countermeasures against police investigation, the document of this case is basically a document that is presumed to include the name presumed to be part of N members, and the document of this case does not constitute a membership list. Moreover, the document of this case does not constitute “the instrument that may affect the body of the changed and deceased” or “the digital device or electronic information” of 3.

Therefore, regardless of whether the documents of this case are related to the facts constituting the crime stated in the first warrant of seizure, the above documents do not constitute “goods to be seized” as stated in the first warrant of seizure. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above documents were lawfully seized by the first warrant of seizure.

(2) The seizure is a compulsory disposition involving the acquisition of possession of an object and the continuation of such possession. However, the execution of the second seizure warrant was conducted in the form of temporarily returning the already seized document, and immediately re-taking it. However, it is difficult to view that the investigative agency newly acquired the possession of the instant document by the execution of the second seizure warrant. Rather, since the seizure status of the instant document was no substantial change before and after the execution of the second seizure warrant, the said seizure status is still illegal by the first seizure warrant. The said seizure status is deemed unlawful. The issuance and execution of the second seizure warrant only after the second seizure warrant is lawful, or the causal link between the procedural defects that occurred during the execution of the first seizure warrant and the second seizure warrant cannot be deemed to be mitigated. In such a case, even if the preceding seizure was unlawful, it would result in obtaining the legality of the seizure by obtaining a new seizure warrant ex post without returning the seized document ex post facto without returning it. As such, the purport of Articles 216 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Act, which restricted the requirements for ex post facto seizure warrant.

③ It is clear that the seizure of the instant documents pursuant to Article 218 subparag. 15 of the Criminal Procedure Act does not constitute a “voluntary submitted article” under the said provision. Moreover, in order to constitute a “oiled article” under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it should be deemed that the said article was separated from the possession of the possessor, etc. However, in the case of the first warrant of seizure, the said document was seized immediately by the police as it was found in the presence of Defendant D during the execution of the first warrant of seizure that the said document was removed from the possession of Defendant D, and the said document was removed from the possession of Defendant D. In addition, there was no other circumstance to deem that the instant document was a material left behind, such as a savement. Therefore, the seizure of the documents of this case did not meet the requirements under Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

2) Whether an exceptional case constitutes admissibility of evidence

(1) According to the principle of warrant requirement, a general warrant that permits comprehensive compulsory disposition without specifying the subject of search and seizure is prohibited. In this regard, Articles 219 and 114(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act explicitly lists the matters to be stated in the search and seizure warrant and specifies “goods to be seized” during the search and seizure warrant. In light of this, it is particularly careful to recognize exceptions to the evaluation of admissibility of evidence as seen earlier with respect to seized goods beyond the scope of “goods to be seized” as stated in the search and seizure warrant.

② The instant documents are in the form of a printed form, printed form, or pocket book that enables confirmation of the content at a site other than electronic information. In addition, most of the above documents are countermeasures against police investigation, and only the entry that can be presumed in the N’s member name is a small number of statements. Therefore, it seems difficult for the AO team that executed the first warrant of seizure to find it difficult to say that the instant documents do not fall under the membership list at the site of execution of the warrant.

As seen above, there is a statement in the protocol of seizure prepared in relation to the execution of the first warrant of seizure that "exploitive documents were seized in accordance with the provisions of Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act."

If the police determined that the document of this case can be lawfully seized as the execution of the first warrant of seizure, there is no reason to mention Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act that provides for the seizure without the warrant in the above seizure protocol. Rather, in light of the context mentioned in Article 218 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it seems that the investigative agency was somewhat doubtful as to whether the document of this case can be seized as the first warrant of seizure solely on the ground that “the document of this case is presumed to have been written by a member, etc.” was sufficient doubt. In practice, the investigative agency prepared an investigation report to the effect that “the document of this case is to be seized as the second warrant of seizure immediately after the return to Defendant B, C, D, etc.” is likely to not be subject to the strict interpretation of the articles to be seized as the first warrant of seizure.

(4) As seen earlier, the investigative agency did not specify from the beginning that “the goods to be seized” of the first seizure warrant as “Membership List” and, for example, specified the documents, such as those in the second seizure warrant, to the extent that “documents in which the relevant contents of the case held or kept by the suspect are stated” and could sufficiently avoid the illegality of the execution of the first seizure warrant as seen earlier.

⑤ Even though the investigative agency is related to the case in the process of executing the first seizure warrant, if the investigative agency discovered any article beyond the scope of seizure of the warrant in principle, the investigative agency should have suspended the execution of the existing warrant and have taken measures to obtain a separate warrant. However, in the case of the second seizure warrant, Defendant D did not have sufficient time to take such measures as above, since Defendant D committed an act that could be seen as evidence concealment, such as destroying the above documents into the space between the window and the wall sloping. In this case, the investigative agency arrested Defendant D as a flagrant offender in the crime of concealing evidence, and at the same time, could obtain an ex post facto seizure warrant under Article 216(1)2 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, it cannot be deemed that the first seizure warrant was executed by stating the process of executing the first seizure warrant and the materials to be seized cannot be seen as having been found as having been possessed by Defendant B, C, D and ex post facto seizure warrant. The same is also applicable to the following measures.

E. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the lower court’s decision that recognized the admissibility of the instant videos and excluded the admissibility of the instant documents, etc. is justifiable. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion that the instant videos should be excluded from the admissibility and the Prosecutor’s assertion that the admissibility of the instant documents ought to be recognized is without merit.

4. Whether a person is recognized as committing a special assault against Defendant A.

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The indictment is not allowed to put the grounds that may cause the court’s prejudice as a fact other than the facts required by law. However, if it appears to be aimed at clarifying the motive, circumstance, or relation with the person involved in the case that the first head of the charge is causing the prosecution, it cannot be said that the given part violates the principle of an indictment only by pointing out the relevant matters which will cause the court’s prejudice (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Do3145, Mar. 11, 1994).

2) Violence in the crime of assault refers to the exercise of an unlawful tangible force against a human body. The illegality should be determined by comprehensively taking into account the purpose and intent of the act, the circumstances at the time of the act, the form and type of the act, the existence and degree of suffering inflicted on the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do6800, Sept. 24, 2009).

3) “Dangerous thing” includes any thing that can be widely used to harm a person’s life and body even if it is not a deadly weapon (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do597, May 30, 1997). Whether a certain thing constitutes “Dangerous thing” ought to be determined depending on whether the other party or a third party could cause danger to a person’s life or body when using the thing in light of ordinary social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10256, Nov. 11, 2010).

4) Whether a certain act is justified as an act that does not contravene social norms, and the illegality is excluded, should be determined on an individual basis by considering the following specific circumstances: (i) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (ii) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (iii) balance of the benefits of protection and infringement; (iv) urgency; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002; 2002Do5077, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003).

5) The consent of the so-called victim whose illegality is excluded in accordance with Article 24 of the Criminal Act should not only refer to the consent of the person who is legally able to dispose of his or her legal interest, but also not be contrary to the ethical and moral rules of society (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 85Do1892, Oct. 12, 1985);

B. The judgment of the court below

1) Whether the principle of an indictment only is violated

Defendant A (hereinafter referred to as Defendant A’s judgment on the occurrence of special assault and death or injury caused by special assault) refers only to Defendant A’s life, and “a person who causes N’s trainees, etc. to obey absolute orders” indicates the relationship between the Defendant and the victim by combining the statement “N’s trainees.” As such, it is related to the motive and circumstance of the Defendant’s assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged, it cannot be said that the facts charged are contrary to the principle of an indictment only with the foregoing stated in the facts charged.

2) The contents of the motion picture of this case and whether it constitutes a special violence

A) The defendant answers to the victim [the face of the trainee is not accurate in video] that "I have to go to see whether I will we go to do so, I have to do so," and "I have to see that I have determined to be unsatisfed after any time."

이에 피고인은 "야 이 미친년아 그걸 뭐 정하고 자빠졌어 언제 끝날지 모르는데 끝임 없이 잔머리야 저 썅년이 저거, 밖에 나가서 들어" 등의 욕설을 하면서 피해자를 2차례 밖으로 내보낸다.

나) 이후 피고인은 피해자를 N 안으로 들어오게 한 뒤 "뭘 반성했어, 무슨 잔머리야, 대가리 박고 있을 동안 뭔 생각했어"라고 말하고, 피해자가 "핸드폰을 꺼낸 자체가 잘못이라고..."라고 답한다. 이에 피고인은 "그렇게 많이 일깨워줘도 여태 뭐 한 거야", "제일 미련한 년이 몽둥이 맞고 욕먹는 년이야 이 썅년아" 등의 말을 한 다음, 손가락으로 왼쪽(동영상의 촬영방향을 기준으로 왼쪽을 말한다, 이하 같다) 방향을 가리키며 "몽둥이 가져 와"라고 말한다. 피해자가 동영상의 촬영장면 왼쪽 밖에서 목검17)을 가져오자, 피고인은 피해자로부터 위 목검을 건네받은 다음 이를 가지고 피해자의 머리, 다리 등 신체부위를 때린다. 피고인이 있는 힘껏 목검을 휘두른 것은 아니나, 그 강도가 그리 가볍지 않으며, 그 횟수는 39회에 달하고, 피해자가 맞으면서 아픈 듯 소리를 내거나(파일명 20180505_145317 동영상 중 30:36 부분) 신음을 참는 듯한 모습(위 동영상 중 30:43, 31:33 부분, 파일명 20180505_153930 동영상 중 01:14 부분 등)을 보이기도 한다.

C) As above, comprehensively taking account of the circumstances leading up to the defendant's scambling of the victim, the defendant's act constitutes violence as an exercise of unlawful tangible force against the victim's body, and the scambling used at the time constitutes "any dangerous object in special violence" in special crimes, as it is sufficient to inflict bodily harm on the victim's body. In addition, it is determined that the defendant had the intent to commit violence against the victim, and it does not affect the establishment of the crime of assault, as to whether the victim was scamed in the head of the plastic case, or whether the victim was scamed with clothes or scam in the clothes.

3) Whether the act constitutes a justifiable act or a consent of the victim

가) 피해자 사망 직후 피해자의 가방과 피해자의 주거지에서는 그녀의 필체로 작성된 수첩 총 8권(이하 '피해자 수첩'이라고 한다)이 발견되었다. 피해자 수첩 중 2018. 5. 5.자 부분에는 "핸드폰 무음설정 (법문 시작 시) 잔머리 굴리는 것, 그렇게 살면 안 된. 몇 시에 끝날 줄 알고??! > 나의 생각: 애초에 핸드폰 쓸 일이 없는데 괜히 애착으로 챙긴 것이 잘못"이라는 기재가 있다18). 앞서 본 바와 같이 이 사건 동영상에도 피고인이 '휴대전화를 무음으로 조정하고 있었다'는 피해자의 말을 듣고서부터 본격적으로 욕설과 질책을 시작한 내용이 담겨 있는바, 피해자의 수첩 기재내용은 위 동영상의 내용에 정확히 부합한다. 이에 의하면, 피고인은 피해자가 법문강의에 집중하지 아니 하고 핸드폰을 만지고 있는 점을 질책하기 위해 폭행을 한 것으로 인정된다.

B) On the contrary, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that they were fessing the victim at a minor level by using a chain of command to receive a victim, etc. In doing acts such as obscenity and watching obscene videos, the Defendant and their defense counsel made a statement to the same effect in the court of the lower court, as well as AT, AS, and Defendant B, and D (including the case where Defendant B and D make a statement as a witness against Defendant A; hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B” and “Defendant D” for convenience when they make a statement as a witness. However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned arguments and statements cannot be accepted. Also, testimony of the same kind of testimony that is not the facts of the above witness and the Defendants cannot be seen as a result of a pre-conscing speech to conceal the victim.

① The Defendant, at the beginning of the police investigation, made a statement to the effect that there was no enemy in the victim’s time (the first police interrogation) and that there was no ice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fices at the time of the third police interrogation, but the situation was examined. The same was the same when the victim was sent to the Defendant prior to the beginning of the lecture. The Defendant made a statement to the effect that he was fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fice fices, and that he was fice fice fice franchis with the Defendant at the time of the entrance of the police investigation (the third police interrogation). The Defendant B and D made a statement to the effect that the victim was fice ficed by the Defendant and the Defendant.

② 피고인은 검찰 조사에 이르러 '2018. 5. 5.경 피해자를 체벌한 것에 대해 미안한 마음이고 개인적으로 잘못되었다'고 진술하면서도 22), '피해자가 당시 발작을 일으켜 눈을 희번덕거리고 중얼거리고 옆 사람을 쿡쿡 찌르는 등 수업을 방해하여 체벌을 하였다'고 진술하여 23), 경찰에서 진술하지 않았던 내용을 덧붙여 진술하였다. 피고인 B, C, D은 검찰에서 '피고인 A이 2018. 5. 5.경 피해자를 체벌하였다'고 진술하였고 24), 이 중 피고인 B는 제1회 검찰 조사에서 '피고인 A이 목검을 이용해서 피해자를 때린 적도 있지만 체벌의 개념이다. 피해자가 주위를 산만하게 해서 그런 것이다'라고 진술하였 다25).

③ In the investigation process like above, the Defendants did not make a statement to the effect that, before May 5, 2018, they engaged in the victim’s behavior, such as obscenity and watching obscene videos, etc., prior to the legal lecture. However, Defendant B only made a statement to the effect that the victim made sexual references, such as the victim’s self-defense, etc., apart from the situation at the above point of time. Meanwhile, in the process of visiting the Defendant detained in the instant case on March 30, 2019, AT responded to “I do not have any written opinion,” and “I would like to listen to the Defendant’s talk about the video of this case,” and therefore, the Defendant sent to “I am memory with the walk that I would be memoryed on May 5, 201,? I would not memory?” The Defendant stated that “I am accurately?” the Defendant’s answer to this case’s image, etc., and did not memory the situation in this case’s image.”

④ However, at the time of May 5, 2018, T and C made a statement with the assent of all the purport that “the victim would be able to obtain dial-a-a-law as soon as possible,” “I wish to do so,” and “IS,” and that “IS, etc. present obscenity to other persons.” In particular, I testified at the court of the original trial on May 20, 2019, approximately two months after having interviewed the Defendant as above, at the court of the original trial on May 5, 2018, at the same time, I stated that I would directly witness and memory specific facts, such as the fact that the victim satisd in the clothes, and that I would like to wear satis,” and that “I expressed obscenity expressed obscenity to other persons, such as AS.

⑤ AS made a statement at the court of the court below for the same purpose as the Defendants and AT, and made a statement to the effect that “AS still gave 30 minutes of time for the abnormal behavior of the victim, such as the above, and even though there was no reflectiveness, the Defendant sought me.” On the other hand, AS made a statement that “AS was the victim’s infinite consciousness, and the atmosphere was not an atmosphere where the victim was infinite, but the Defendant was finite, and the victim was finite.” Even when granting time of her deliberation, the situation where the victim was finite, even if she was given, and the situation where the victim was finite, from a long atmosphere, was finite, and the Defendant’s attitude expressed in the video can be determined as “finite finite,” regardless of being connected with each other.

(6) As seen earlier, in the victim’s pocket book on May 5, 2018, the content of the sound fence, etc. is not indicated, and the video of this case does not present any such circumstance at all.

C) The Defendant’s act goes beyond the limits of appropriate methods or means for raising futile under sound social norms, and does not constitute a justifiable act. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s act goes beyond the limits of punishment in light of the following: (b) the Defendant’s act did not go beyond the limits of the appropriate methods or means for raising futile under sound social norms; and (c) the Defendant’s act did not constitute a justifiable act; (d) the Defendant’s act did not constitute a justifiable act, in addition to the developments leading up to the assault, the Defendant’s speech, the Defendant’s act, and the Defendant’s behavior, the manner, and the frequency of assault; and (e) the Defendant already went out of the Republic of Korea, and (e) did not cause any mistake.

D) On the other hand, even if the mother of the victim asked the defendant to admonish him/her about the assault, it cannot be said that the method of using the assault was acceptable, and the mother of the victim does not have the right to consent to the physical benefit of the victim. In addition, even if the victim consented to the assault of the defendant, and even if the victim consented to the assault of the defendant, accepting the above degree of assault is invalid as it goes against social norms. Therefore, the defendant's assertion that it is an act by the victim's consent is without merit.

C. The judgment of this Court

Examining the following circumstances that the lower court properly explained by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant, while taking a bath to the victim on May 5, 2018, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the Defendant was at the time of the victim’s head, head, etc., and safly with the autopsy, who is a dangerous object, while taking a bath to the victim on May 5, 2018. Therefore, the lower court’s determination on this part is justifiable, and the Defendant’s assertion on this part

① 증인 AX은 이 법원에서 AT과 피고인 A, B, D의 진술 내용과 동일하게 '2018. 5. 5. 법문강의에서 피해자가 휴대폰으로 음란영상을 보아, 피고인이 이를 장난식으로 질책하였다. 피해자가 플라스틱 케이스를 머리에 대고 있고, 피고인이 지휘봉으로 피해자의 머리를 톡톡 쳐서, 플라스틱 케이스와 지휘봉이 부딪힌 것이다'고 진술하였다29).

However, in light of the following circumstances, the testimony of AX cannot be believed as it is.

7) AX stated that it is not ‘the time of head', but ‘the time of plastic rink', but ‘the time of plastic rink', but did not make a concrete statement about the shape, etc. of the plastic rink. AX is not related to the victim, but does not have any personal talks other than N, but it stated that "the defendant has not made an English translation into the victim, and the victim has no fact of translation."

Although the fact that the defendant was named as ‘Non' appears to be relatively apparent by various objective evidence, at least AT, etc. used the name of ‘Non' when recording the images of the legal text, despite the testimony 33), AX stated that N was not ‘N' but ‘Non' as ‘Non'.

2. A witness FB asked the court of this case that “the sound fit for plastics, i.e., whether it is appropriate for the head, and her head.” 35) The prosecutor confirmed that “the Defendant again asked the victim to extract the command gate in the command rink,” and the victim was at the time of the victim’s talking with the victim. Although the witness (FB) was not aware of the sound in detail, the sound was ‘through’ and her sound. Whether the sound was fit for the body of the person directly, or how the sound was fit for the body of the person directly, I think that FB was her head when he took the direction. He did not think of the sound, and that it was not “the time when he heard the bones,” and that it was not “the time when he heard the bones,” and that it was not the field of plastic.

③ In light of the video of this case, the sound from the face of the victim’s head at the scene of the defendant’s scam with plastic rinks and scams, and the defendant seems to have been unscamed so far from the side of the victim’s body (31:20,32:20 out of the file name 201805-505-145317 video). In addition, even though the defendant said that the victim’s body was ‘scam’, the victim was 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''? 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' and repeated 's 's 's 's '.

(4) If the Defendant’s act of viewing obscene videos and making a obscenity plaque on the part of the Defendant as alleged in the Defendants, AT, X, etc. constitutes the ground of assault, the Defendant’s act of pointing out the error of the victim does not appear entirely on the video of this case, even though the content of the instant act of pointing out the error of the victim.

5. Whether the crime of special assault against Defendant A is recognized

A. Relevant legal principles

In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Do14263, Feb. 25, 2010; 2009Do14263, Feb. 25, 2010; 209Do1463, Feb. 25, 2010; 2009Do14263, Feb. 25, 2010). If there is no evidence to establish such a conviction, the defendant’s interest should be determined even if there is no doubt that the defendant is guilty. However, such conviction does not necessarily have to be formed by direct evidence, unless it violates the empirical and logical rules, and it is formed by indirect evidence. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be the sole evidence, it can be found that there is a reasonable doubt or abstract rationale for the probability of facts.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 2016Do6757 Decided January 25, 2018; 2004Do2221 Decided June 25, 201, etc.)

B. The judgment of the court below

In the instant case where there is no direct evidence that the Defendant assaulted the victim on September 16, 2018, around 17:54-19:09, the lower court determined that the Defendant could be recognized as having caused death by assaulting the victim from N on September 16, 2018, by taking account of the following facts and circumstances known based on the adopted evidence:

1) N’s history and training contents and the Defendants’ roles

A) Since N was opened by the Defendant around November 1997, it is the traditional martial arts hall operated on the fourth floor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M&A. N has been mainly engaged in the training, such as 'astronomical Personnel', 'Ocheon’, 'Ocheon’, 'OU', 'AU', 'OU', 'OU', 'N', 'OV', 'AV', 'AV', and 'AV', 'AV' and 'OV', each day of each week and the day of each week (10:30-11:30), 15:0-00-17:00 each day of each week.

B) From 2002 to 2002, Defendant B was killed in N as the president by the Defendant and was employed as the president from around the end of 2002, and had been residing in N for about five years before the end of 36). Defendant C was present for about two to three months in 2000 and began to enter N again for about seven to eight years since 200, and Defendant D was not N from around 2013, and all of the above two persons were to teach other students at N around the time of this case (37).

2) Circumstances in which the defendant demands absolute emulging from N as N N's president, instructors, and trainees, or from N's own 'N' or 'N' to 'N' or 'N's own emulging.

A) A document was posted within N around September 16, 2018, where the victim died. AW along with the expression “AW”, one of them stated the training contents such as AX, AS, AT, and Defendant D, as well as the target time for each N trainee’s practice (hereinafter referred to as “training content document”), and 38) other one, under the title of “NN Ngggggggggging,” “39”, the document must be attached to that time, if there was a letter of thickness, and should not be neglected or neglected.”

B) Defendant B, around April 2017, called “Sewn????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

C) Nypoid has a video file that has taken the legal lectures, etc. that the Defendant had progress. According to the chapter 43 appearing in the video file, the Defendant refers to the Defendant’s continuous name as a “sypon,” and “sypon is a sypon’s color.” The victim refers to a sypon’s sypon’s sypon’s sypon’s sypon. 44)

D) In the case of a voice file (hereinafter referred to as "audio file") No. 45, which refers to a 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' or 's 's 's 's 's '' to 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' to 's 's 's 's '' to 's 's 's '' to 's 's '' and 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '

E) On September 6, 2018, between 09:51 and 19:30 on September 14, 2018, the Defendant sent a message with the content that: (a) between 09:51 on September 6, 2018 to 19:30 on September 14, 2018, the Defendant: (b) instructed Defendant D to process speech by no later than a certain time, such as “n't have been known until 5: (c)”, “n't have been treated by no later than 8; (d)”, and “n't have been treated by no later than 10 days.” (a) Defendant D sent a message with the content that she had been aware of the fact that Defendant D had not been treated in a timely manner; (e) Defendant D continued to transmit the message; (e) will continue to have been aware of the fact that she had not been treated by no later than 1.47).

F) Defendant B, C, and witness AT, etc. were detained in the instant case and were released on bail until the Defendant was released on bail. In this process, the Defendant was given a report on N, etc. from Defendant B, C, and AT and instructed the organization of arguments related to the trial, delivery of documents, written applications or written confirmations, etc. (48). In particular, if Defendant B and C did not properly ascertain their horses or do not properly perform instructions, the Defendant was responsible for the above two Defendants at large interest, and the above two Defendants sent a positive attitude without any particular resistance to the Defendant’s quality.

G) Defendant B made a statement that “A NNN” was “A” when directly facing the Defendant, and the witness AT et al. also referred to the Defendant in the court of original instance as “A NNN”; Defendant B, C, and D asserted that “A NNN” rather than “NNNNN”. However, Defendant B made a statement that “A NNNN” and “NNN” were referred to as “NNNN” if he was investigated as witness for the first change immediately after the victim’s death, and “INNNNN” were referred to as “NN” or “NNNNN” in the second witness investigation process. 51) Defendant B did not use the expression that “A NNNN” was “NNNNNNN” and “NNNNNNNNNN” and “INNNNNNNNNNNNN” and “INNNNNNNNNNNNN” were not referred to as “NNNN” and “INNNNNNNN”.

3) Circumstances in which the victim continued to accompany N from 2015 to 2015 and requested the Defendant to translate the law into the law and pay additional membership fees, etc., and absolutely obeys the Defendant.

가) 피해자는 수년 전 N을 몇 개월 정도 다니고 한동안 방문하지 아니 하다가, 2015년경부터 본격적으로 N을 다니기 시작하였다. 피해자의 어머니인 W가 피해자에게 N회비 명목으로 돈을 대주다가 2017. 4.경부터 이를 중단하려 하자(실제로 2017, 3. 28.까지는 피해자의 신한은행 계좌에 'AY' 이름으로 돈이 주기적으로 입금되다가 그 후부터는 위와 같은 입금이 이루어지지 아니하였다, 순번 2 계좌거래내역 참조), 피해자는 유리병을 던져 깨뜨리는 등으로 거칠게 행동하였다. 이에 피해자의 남동생인 X는, 피해자와 W의 갈등이 심하여 당분간 떨어져 지내야겠다는 생각에 2017. 7.경 W로부터 분가하여 서울 동대문구 AZ(이하 생략)에서 피해자와 함께 거주하기 시작하였다(위 거주지를 이하 '피해자의 거주지'라 한다). W는 'N을 그만 다니라 했을 때부터 애(피해자)가 거칠어졌다'고 진술하였고, X는 '이전에는 (피해자가) 유리병을 던지는 등의 거친 행동을 한 적이 없다, 분위기 자체가 공격적이지 않은 집안인데, 유리병을 깼다는 것 자체가 너무 충격이었고 놀랐다'고 진술하였다.

나) 피해자 수첩은 일기 형식으로 작성되었고, 계좌송금내역, 카드사용내역, N 외장하드에 저장된 동영상 등 객관적 증거에 부합하는 기재들54)을 비롯하여, 피해자가 직접 경험한 내용을 토대로 작성한 것으로 보이는 구체적이고도 현실적인 내용들이 상당수 기재되어 있어 신빙성이 높다.55) 피해자 수첩 중에는 "한 달에 백오십만 원 (백~ 백삼십) (*비+용돈)”, “계속 돈 달라고 조르기”라는 기재와 함께 “완전히 다른 인간이 되었구나! 할 정도로”, “최악으로 꾀죄죄하게”, “소주 한 병, 막걸리 머리에서 부어 발 끝까지 붓기", "☆ 말도 안되는 황당함”, “서울역, 화장실, 잠, 기도원”, “완전 미친 척”, “익명 112 신고 (BM)”, “공부하는 모습 보이지 않기" 등의 기재가 있는데56), 피해자 수첩 내에서의 위치상 해당 기재는 2017. 3. 26.경부터 2017. 5. 3.경까지 사이 불상의 일자에 작성된 것으로 보인다. 앞서 보았듯 W가 2017. 4.경부터 N 회비를 대주지 않으려 하자 피해자가 유리병을 던지는 등 기존에 보이지 않던 거친 행동을 하였던 사정을 보태어 보면, 피해자는 W로 하여금 N 회비 명목으로 계속하여 돈을 대주게 하려는 목적에서 의도적으로 정신적인 문제가 있는 것처럼 W, X 등에게 과격한 행동을 한 것으로 보인다. 그 무렵인 2017. 4.경 앞서 본 바와 같이 피고인 A, B는 X와 통화를 하였는데, 이 때 피고인 B는 '피해자가 BB를 들어가려고 하는데, 피해자가 본인들의 말을 들으니까 N에 회비 납부를 약속하면 BB에서 피해자를 데리고 오겠다'는 취지의 말을 하였다.

C) Examining the details of new bank account transactions in the victim’s name, around December 10, 2015, KRW 300,000 has been transferred from around September 10, 201 to one bank account under the defendant’s name, and from that time, KRW 100,000 has been continuously transferred to the bank account in the defendant’s name until September 10, 2018. In particular, from June 10, 2017 to November 11, 2018, each of the 160,000 won, and each of the 170,000,000,000 won was transferred to the defendant’s account, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant’s statement “the above 50,000 won was transferred to the above defendant’s account,” and it is reasonable to view that the 50,010,000 won was transferred to the defendant’s bank account in the victim’s name, and that the 1701,00,00,000,000 won.

D) Examining the above contents of the training program as indicated “(victims) - the public number (10 minutes), 15 minutes (15 minutes), 10 minutes (10 minutes), 60 minutes (5 minutes), 2018, the victim’s pocket book, and the part corresponding to May-9, 2018, the above contents as indicated in the clause (b) include N’s training activities, the demand and quality related to N’s legal lecture and English translation related thereto, Defendant B, and AT, and the word “Snman” continuously appeared. As seen earlier, the Defendants should be educated the victim to the effect that the Defendant would be able to use the victim’s voice in accordance with his son’s match, and that the Defendant would be able to have his son’s ordinary skill paid to the victim, and that the Defendant would have to have his son’s daily skill recorded in the victim’s pocket, and that the Defendant would not have to have his son’s voice recorded in the victim’s pocket.”

E) On May 22, 2016, the victim sent a message to AD, which had been talked at a training group on the name of BC, to the effect that the Internet address (UDR) connected to the images of “BD guide image” to AI was invited to attend the N legal Assembly (LL) around July 11, 2016.62) If the victim excluded each of the above message, the victim and AD message were sent from April 1, 2014 to November 28, 2017: (i) the question, etc. that the victim took place in the process outside of the veterinary course, etc. was asked to AD for the attendance of the message, (ii) the degree that the victim mentioned the her husband’s her husband’s participation in the training program, and (iii) the victim did not mention that it was 10 minutes of the message in the process of making his speech to the effect that it was 10 minutes of the message, etc., and (iv) the victim did not mention that it was 30 minutes of the message.

F) At the court below's decision, X, the victim's male birth, expressed that "the victim's male birth f.e., n't n's uniformly and opened to the audience rapidly. For more than two to three months prior to the death, D's translation of N's laws into the phone from any male, "I am f.e., why I am soon and soon," and the victim stated that "I am f.e., "I am f., I am in distress." At that time, I am f.e., "I am f., I am," and the victim stated that I am f.e., the victim worked as first-time worker at BE in Seoul Metropolitan Government office from March 2, 2018 to September 14, 2018. At that time, the public prosecutor and the victim in charge BE's telephone call who had been working on the victim at the time, had been aware that I am f.e., the victim could not talk his work.

H) On September 17, 2018, the day following the death of the victim, at around 17:50 to 19:30, the police discovered the computers and uniforms used by the victim at the victim’s residence and received them from X at will. A translation of N’s legal text, etc. from the aforementioned computer was discovered, and X was also found, and X also found, around July 21, 2018, found that the body of the victim was written by the victim and submitted to the prosecutor of the prosecution around July 11, 2019, a photograph taken by the victim, including “BD’s implementation official law” and “N’s official book.”

4) There are a large number of statements that the victim’s pocket book, especially the victim’s pocket book, 2018-related part 68), the victim himself/herself was her from her 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's '' or 's 's 's 's 's 's '' was made from her 's 's 's 's 's 's ' '' was made from her 's 's 's 's '.' There are no explicit statements that the victim made an assault from the defendant on May 5, 2018 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ' and 's ' 's '.' It is only self-based 's 's '.

B) Examining the images stored in NH, around May 5, 2018, the Defendant’s image (hereinafter referred to as “scopic image”) took a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic of a scopic.

Defendant B stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that the wood inspection used at the time of May 5, 2018 is the same as the instant wood inspection, and as seen below, Defendant B appeared the word “the Defendant would bring the monin” in addition to the video on May 5, 2018, and the word “the Defendant would bring the monin” on other days in the victim’s pocket book. However, Defendant B recognized that N was aware of the Defendant’s monin as “the tool to bring the monin of the Defendant.”

다) N 외장하드에는 ⑦ 피고인이 2016. 6. 18.경 N 내에서 "저 미친 년, 확 그냥, 몽둥이 가져와"라고 말하는 장면이 담긴 영상, ① 피고인이 2017. 4. 1.경 피해자 등에게 수련동작을 가르치는 중간에 피고인 D의 머리를 목검으로 치는 장면을 촬영한 영상, Ⓒ 피고인이 2018. 1. 20.경 법문강의 중 "잘못했을 때 회초리를 들 땐 들어야 돼. (중략) 너희들은 매 때리면 지랄발광하지. 이 종자들은, 고소 안 하면 다행이지" 등으로 말하는 장면을 촬영한 영상, ② 피고인이 2018. 3. 17.경 "재는 동호회 수업해야지, 회사 일 해야지, 여기 수련 나와야지, 돈 구하러 다녀야지, 두드려 맞아야지, 그걸 보고도 못 느껴 얼마나 니가 편한지. 니가 제일 편해, N에서 (중략) 얘는 죽을 맛 보고, 나이 50 중반에 야자 소리 들어가면서, 빠따 맞아가면서" 등의 말을 하는 장면이 촬영된 영상 등이 존재한다 72).

D) In the process of conversations with X around April 2017, the Defendant stated to the effect that “In the course of the conversations with X, the Defendant changed to the point of (comprehion) protruding to the 3 pages, and changed to the point of (comprehion) to the point of (comprehion) and, therefore, it would have been erroneous for the Defendant to do so at the point of time when the sum of (comprehion) sum is less than the point of time.” In the course of the conversation with X, there is a letter stating to the effect that there is a little time when the victim was the victim.

E) Defendants, AT, AS, etc. made a statement to the effect that there was no assault other than May 5, 2018 within N, but it is difficult to believe in light of the foregoing facts. If such assault was saluted for the purpose of discipline or was inevitable during training, it would have been able to obtain it to a certain extent depending on the subjective point of view. However, even though there was no assault itself, it cannot be deemed that there was a false statement made in collusion for the purpose of understanding the speech.

5) Circumstances in which the victim did not appear in the Republic of Korea other than N around 2018 and cannot find any place or issue that could have been used for assault except N.

A) If the details of each transfer and regular credit card payment are excluded from the above Defendant’s name account, from December 10, 2015 to September 2018, no more than one hundred thousand won is found to have been periodically withdrawn from the new bank account in the victim’s name as seen earlier from December 10, 2015 to the specific person or a specific account for more than one month. In particular, from June 1, 2018 to September of the same year, no more than one hundred thousand won was found to have been collected from the said new bank account.

B) As seen earlier, the victim worked in BE within the Seoul Government Office from March 2, 2018 to September 14, 2018. At the time, the victim’s working hours were 08:0-100-100 and gold day from March 2 to September 14, 2018. The victim, from January 15, 2018 to February 28, 2018, was 1:00 to 08:0-10,000, and 2:8:8,000,000 from September 14, 2018, 200 to 20:8:8,000,000 from September 2, 2018, 200 to 2:8:0,000,000 from September 2, 20, 200 to 2:8:0,000 to 3:0,000,000.

C) Examining the details of the use of the FN Transportation Card used by the victim from January 1, 2018 to September 16, 2018, the victim’s movement does not change contractually and almost little, as seen below. As seen earlier, there is almost little trace of moving the victim to any other place except for the movement related to the Seoul Office and the work of private teaching institutes, extracurricular lessons, and N activities.

(1) BE service: From March 2, 2018, the victim was confirmed to have taken Saturdays, Sundays, holidays, and injury on work status from March 2, 2018 (on May 15, 2018, July 25, 2018, July 31, 2018, August 9, 2018, etc.), he/she was boarding in the BJ station, a subway station, the neighboring subway station, the victim’s domicile, around 07:20-07:50, while getting out of the viewing station around 11:15, and again getting out of the viewing station (on the part of other subway stations adjacent to the TWG, the subway station adjacent to the TWG).

(2) On January 5, 2018, the victim was regularly getting on and off from BK Station from January 5, 2018. In particular, from March 2, 2018, excluding Saturdays, Sundays and holidays, almost every day after getting on and off from the viewing station around 11:30 to 12:00, after getting on and getting off from BK Station around 17:30 to 18:30.

(3) With respect to extracurricular lessons: (a) between July 21, 2018 and August 11, 2018, between the victim: (b) left the bus stops near the bus stops that appear near BH in light of luminous time, such as BM and BN, after leaving the bus out of the exclusive mountain basin; (c) around 2-3 hours after leaving the bus at the adjacent bus stops, and (d) it is confirmed that the victim would go to the subway through the subway from around 20:49 to around 20:0 on August 31, 2018; and (d) the victim was again excluded from the said bus stops on September 1, 2018, on September 1, 2018, from around 20:10 to around 20:0 on September 28, 2018, the victim was excluding the victim from the said bus stops on September 28, 2018, the victim’s residence.

(4) With respect to extracurricular lessons: On August 22, 2018, the victim: the day of each week and Saturdays (except September 1, 2018) from September 15, 2018 to September 15, 2018, the victim moves down from the subway station, which is located in the subway station located in approximately nine minutes in the Do newsletter from the apartment, or moves down from the high-speed terminal station to the BP bus, to the above apartment bus stops near the apartment complex, such as the subway station, apartment house, 'BR station', the victim moves down to the bus stops near the apartment complex, such as the bus stops, including around three to four hours from the demand to see, e.g., "BP station", "BR station", and the bus stops from the bus stops to the subway station or the high-speed terminal station).

(5) Regarding the extracurricular lessons of BI apartment: On September 1, 2018, the victim was boarding the subway on the same day from 09:02 BJ Station to the subway station on September 1, 2018, and left the bus stops of BS apartment to BS apartment, and then getting out of the bus stops of BS apartment at around 11:52 on the same day. In addition, on September 15, 2018, the victim was boarding the subway at BJ Station to the subway station on the same day and getting out of the subway station at 09:25 BT Station on the same day, 11:54'B apartment on the same day from the bus stops to the subway station on the bus stops of BS.

(6) Detailed No. 1: On February 5, 2018, the victim met with N: (a) on a regular basis; (b) without almost little exceptions from February 5, 2018, the victim was boarding or leaving the RR station, BU station, or BV station (hereinafter referred to as “R station, etc.”) which is a subway station near N, on every week, TU station, and TU station. Upon examining the relevant boarding or unloading hours, the victim was getting off between 10:0 to 10:30:12:30 hours from R station, etc. or getting off at around 18:0 to 19:00,00 hours; (c) around 21:30 to 22:30 hours from the 200:0 a.m., the victim was boarding or leaving the train at the latest from March 3, 2018 to the 1:30 p.m. of the 1:3 hours a.m. at the latest.

저녁 수련 19:30~20:30, 토요일 법문강의 15:00~17:00)에 대체로 들어맞는 점, 앞서 본 바와 같이 피해자 유족 등의 진술, 피해자의 주거지 및 피해자가 사용한 PC, 피해자 수첩 기재, 피해자 명의 계좌거래내역 등에서 N과 연관된 흔적이 다수 존재하는 점에 비추어 보면, 위와 같은 승·하차내역은 피해자의 N 활동과 관련된 것이라 봄이 상당하다. 한편 피해자는 2018. 4월부터 매월 첫째 주 토요일에는 R역 등 대신 시청역에서 하차하였는데, 앞서 보았듯이 피해자 수첩 중 2018. 6. 2.자(첫째 주 토요일이다) 부분에 "☆ 반성 : 시청강론 늦음 → 원장님도 안 계신데 BW 선생님 혼자 준비하시다가 비비디오 녹화를 못함", "강론(BW 선생님)"라는 기재가 존재하는 점, 당시 피해자와 피고인 D 모두 서울시청에서 근무한 점 등에 비추어 보면, 위 하차내역 역시 N 활동과 관련된 것으로 보인다.

(7) Details 2: The victim appears to be related to N: BX 08: around 00-08:30, 2018, excluding January and 4-5 months during 2018. The victim appears to be attending the bus stop at the "Board of Audit and Inspection" stations around 08:0 to 08:30, 2018. The victim appears to be the victim's attending the training program in light of the fact that the victim's statement in the training program "in the second week: 81, 2018, 200, 2018, 208, 2018, 208, 2018, 2018, 202.

(8) From January 1, 2018 to September 16, 2018, the victim usually gets off the subway stations or bus stops and gets on the same or nearby station stops, and accordingly the victim's movement leads naturally without almost cut off. The victim's movement appears to be naturally followed without any exception. The victim's transport card appears to have been returned to the nearby station for the first time during the first time during the second time during the second time during the second time during his/her residence without exception.

For example, on August 16, 2018, around 22:02, and around 00:19 on September 1, 2018, the victim landed from a taxi, and 07:16 on August 17, 2018, and 09:02 on September 1, 2018, boarded into a subway at BJ Station. On September 18:33, 2018, after getting off a taxi and getting off a taxi at around 18:52 on the same day, the victim stopped in a bus stop at 22:32 "BP Station" bus stops on the same day after getting off a taxi at around 09:25 on September 15, 2018, and the day after getting off a bus at the BP Station at around 09:25 on the same day:15 B:4 on September 15, 2018.

D) Examining the mobile phone (BY) calls from April 2018 to September 16, 2018 used by the victim, the address of the call call call from the said mobile phone does not deviate from ① neighboring the victim’s residence (Seoul Dongdaemun-gu) (Seoul Dongdaemun-gu), ② neighboring the Seoul Metropolitan Government Office (Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul Jung-gu, 1-ro, 1-ro, 2-dong, west-dong, 2-dong, west-dong, etc.), ③ neighboring the fish teaching institute (Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul), ④ neighboring the place where the victim provided extracurricular lessons (Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, BH and AL, and Yongsan-gu, Seoul), ⑤ N (Seoul Jongno-gu, Seoul, CBdong,CC, CD, etc.) neighboring the subway or bus route (Seoul Jongno-gu, Seoul, 84).

On the other hand, in light of the above monetary content, the details of the victim's exchange of telephone or letters with the defendant A (CI), the defendant C (CJ), the defendant DCK, and the defendant AT (CL), each over several times. In particular, with the defendant B (CM and CN), the details of telephone, text, and correspondence over several times are confirmed.

In addition to the defendants and AT, it is difficult to find a person who gives and receives telephone and letters from the victim over a number of times to a hundred and twenty times during the above period.

E) Examining the settlement details from March 16, 2018 to September 16, 2018 of Chapter II of the new card that the victim possessed at the time of the victim’s death, most of the settlement details that does not exceed KRW 10,000 to KRW 60,000,00, in light of the following: (a) the details of the main sentence in Mart, 200; (b) the details of meals in branches of meal houses (C Q Q, CR, etc.); and (c) convenience stores; (c) the details of the product distribution; (d) the details of the PC use; and (e) the details of the PC use; and (e) the name of the franchise (CS; (c) the cT; and (c) the cU.

F) During the victim’s pocket book, “Dokwon”, “B 86”, “Igre (comp. 87) visitors to BB Dok religious (V)”, “Ig constantly compare N with other groups, and it is possible for the victim to obtain a lot of data from which Igre to what I had left?” (No. 30, May 30, 2018) and “Igre Dok Dok Dok 89 before the election of the CU Ng Dog Dok (No. 208, Jun. 2, 2018)” and “Igre Dok 90, Embre 90, Embre 90, Embre 90, Embre 90, Embre 98, Embre 90, Embre 98, etc.)” and “Igre 90, Em 28, Em., 2018.

However, the witness X-D statements to the effect that the victim was only the victim's cV, CZ, BB, and legal parties, and there is no mentioning other than N in the message actually received from the victim. The witness at the court below stated that the victim's cZ according to his parents and there was no cZ on several occasions before the victim enters an elementary school. The victim's request for new or legal party is not the victim's memory. The victim's cV on the victim's pocket book 20 months before the victim's death and the victim's cV on the victim's 3th anniversary of his cV, the victim's 3th anniversary of his cV on the day of his cV's death and the cV on the victim's 3th anniversary of his cV on the day of his cV's death, and the victim's cV on the victim's 3th day of his cV on the day of his cV's death.

6) Circumstances in which the victim was assaulted by a mar examination, etc. within two weeks from the date of death, and there are circumstances under which he/she was able to be able to be able to be sworn from the Defendant, and that he/she cannot find any place or issue other than N.

가) 피해자의 사망 직후 사체를 검안·부검하는 과정에서 ① 등 전반에 걸친 광범위한 피하출혈과 그 양쪽 가장자리(양쪽 옆구리 위치)의 두 줄 출혈, ② 오른쪽 위팔 앞 뒤쪽과 아래팔 뒤쪽 및 왼쪽 위팔 뒤쪽의 피하출혈, 특히 오른쪽 아래팔 바깥쪽과 자뼈 쪽 및 왼쪽 위팔 안쪽의 두 줄 출혈, ③ 양쪽 허벅지 앞쪽의 선상 피하출혈과 그 각 가장자리 및 허벅지 바깥쪽의 두 줄 출혈, ④ 오른쪽 귀 뒤쪽 및 목 오른쪽의 두 줄 피하출혈(이 부분 출혈을 이하 '이 사건 중선출혈'이라 한다)94), ⑤ 왼쪽 윗눈꺼풀 전반의 피하출혈과 윗눈꺼풀 바깥쪽 선상 표피박탈 및 왼쪽 아랫눈꺼풀 바깥쪽의 출혈, ⑥ 왼쪽 귓바퀴 안쪽의 피하출혈, ① 후두부 전반의 희미한 붉은색 피하출혈 등 손상이 확인되었다. 두 줄 출혈(중선출혈)은 가늘고 긴 물체가 피부에 접촉하면서 피하연부조직의 혈액이 양쪽 가장자리로 밀려나는 현상을 말한다. 부검의인 Z은 위와 같은 사체 손상 등을 토대로 '출혈과 근육 손상이 전신적인 이상을 초래하였으며 그 과정에서 피해자가 사망에 이르렀을 것'이라면서 피해자의 사망원인을 압궤증후군으로 판단하였다. 법의학교수인 증인 AE, AF도 원심 법정에서 '피해자의 사망원인을 외상성 쇼크 등으로 표현하는 것이 보다 적절하다고 생각하나, 광범위한 근육 손상과 출혈이 사망의 원인이 되었다는 점에서는 압궤증후군이라는 표현이 틀렸다고 할 수는 없다'는 취지로 진술하였다.

B) With respect to the blood transfusion confirmed in the body of the victim, the witness Z appears to have occurred within one week from the date of death as relatively fresh blood transfusions in the court of original judgment. The physical damage that has a significant impact on the death was made within one week from the date of death, and the victim's statement was made to the effect that "(the point at which the death occurred) is difficult to be considered as the body of the victim after the lapse of the ordinary two weeks," and "it is not more than two weeks from the date of death". ② The witness AE presumed that the blood transfusion was recently (the point at which the blood transfusion occurred), but it is not possible to determine the time accurately, but within two weeks from the date of death, it is clear that it was made within the framework that it was made within the second week from the date of death (the date of death) and that it was difficult to see that it was made within the victim's statement to the effect that it was made within the victim's body.

다) 앞서 보았듯이, 피해자는 사망일 이전부터 수개월간 규칙적인 행적과 생활패턴을 보였고, 피고인 외에는 특정인에게 주기적으로 10만 원을 초과하는 돈을 송금한 적이 없으며, 신한카드로 6만 원을 초과하지 않는 범위 내의 일상적인 소비만 하였다. 이와 같은 규칙적인 생활패턴은 피해자의 사망일로부터 2주 이내의 기간(즉 2018. 9. 3.~2018. 9. 16.)에도 그대로 유지되어, 위 기간에도 피해자가 N 수련시간 내지 법문강의 시간에 맞추어 화·목·토요일마다 R역 등에서 승·하차한 내역이 확인된다95), 위 기간 동안 피해자가 거주지, 서울시청 등 근무지, 과외교습 장소 및 N이 소재한 곳이 아닌 다른 장소로 간 흔적은 찾을 수가 없으며, 위 기간에도 피해자는 N 관계자, 특히 피고인 B와 대부분의 전화 및 문자를 주고받았다96), 피해자 수첩 중 2018. 9. 3.경부터 작성된 부분을 살펴보아도, 일상생활 관련 내용("못 정리 시작”, “팥 삶기, 단호박 삶기"), 서울시청 또는 AJ 어학원에서의 근무나 과외교습과 관련된 내용("아이들 Pacaliat 미리 준비 안 참, “과와 갈 때 지하철 잘못 君)이 아니면 N 수련 또는 법문 번역과 관련된 내용["시청에서도 나사 풀려서 내 자리 청소 먼저 함(번역이 우선임)”, “수신 제대로 못함" 등]들이 지속적으로 기재되어 있을 뿐97), 기존의 행적이나 생활패턴에서 어긋나는 활동을 의심케 하는 기재는 보이지 않는다. 피해자는 2018. 9. 3.경 및 2018. 9. 7.경 기존에 가지 않은 PC방을 방문하기도 하였으나 98), 해당 PC방은 모두 피해자의 과외교습 장소 인근인 광명시 DA동에 소재하고 있고, 위 수첩 기재에 비추어 피해자는 법문 번역작업을 위해 위 PC방을 들렸을 뿐으로 보여, 피해자의 기존 행적에서 벗어나지 않는다.

D) Meanwhile, on the other hand, the victim died within two weeks from September 4, 2018 (Franch Day), on the 6th day of the same month, on the 11th day of the same month, on the 13th day of the same month, and on the 15th day of the same month, there were N on the 11th day of the same month. The defendant was also N on the 11th day of the same month. The victim’s pocketbook 99) dated September 6, 2018, "at the time of use of one language, kid on the 3rd day of the same month," "at the time of use of this language, 100, 2000, 3000 out of the 1st day of the same month, 3rd day of the same month, 3rd day of the same month, 3rd day of the same month, 3rd day of the correction, and 9th day of the 9th day of the 2018.

(1) (W) The Defendant stated that “I have been engaged in smelling accidents, singing, singinging, singinging, and singinging. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. am. I. I. am..............

E) In the court below's decision, the witness 2 stated that it is not appropriate to say that the blood transfusion on the body of the victim was caused by the instant wooden inspection. However, it is possible to deem that the above blood transfusion was caused by the above wooden inspection. The witness 2 argued that "It is more likely that the blood transfusion was caused by the above wooden inspection," and that the counsel's question is whether it is more likely to be seen as a body caused by the slide or the slide, rather than by the solid substance, such as the slide, in light of the shape or length of the upper body," and that the lawyer's question is more likely to be seen as a body caused by the slide or the slide.

AE and AF made a statement to the effect that it conforms to the above statement as a substitute for the above statement, and in particular, AF made a statement to the effect that “I would be sufficiently able to generate a double sprinke that is confirmed by the victim’s body). Finally, I think I think I would be more nesple that I would be more nesphere than the victim’s body.” As seen earlier, I confirmed that the body of the victim was kept in the N image taken around September 15, 2018 immediately before the instant case, and that there was a large number of nespys including the instant wood autopsy in N in the process of the execution of the first seizure warrant, and the Defendants also made a statement to the effect that IF would keep the body in the multi-use room only with the situation of the law lecture, etc., and that there was a body of the victim, such as the victim’s sphere in light of the following circumstances, the body of the victim itself could not be readily concluded as the body of this case.

F) In light of the statements by the Director of the Korean Language Institute at the time of the instant case, the statements by BF, the statements by the former Director of the Seoul Office at the time of the instant case, the statements by the parents of students who received English and foreign lessons from the victim, and the statements by AD in contact with the victim immediately before the death of the victim, it is difficult to think that the victim could have been abused with any tool that could cause the middle-distance transfusion from the ZA or the Seoul Office or the English and foreign teaching place. Ultimately, there is only N in the place where the said assault could have occurred.

G) The witness Z stated to the effect that, although the court below was unable to speak periodically at the court below’s judgment, the scope of damage is wide and the location of the middle blood relative is easily damaged by the knife, etc., it is extremely difficult to view the body damage of the knife (victim). Rather, the damage to the outside of the arms, etc. is similar to the damage from the defensive form, thereby undermining others. The witness AE and AF also stated to the effect that the knife that the knife may not occur due to the knife of the knife that occurred to the victim. The victim cannot think that the knife the knife caused the knife to the victim’s eye on the wall of the knife on the upper day of 2018. However, there is no possibility that the knife is related to the part of the right part, such as the main damage caused by the death of the victim after the death of the knif.

7) The instant middle blood transfusion is the upper part of the victim’s building that had not existed before entering the N, and was caused by assault.

A) Of the above blood transfusions, the location, scope, and colors of the instant middle blood relative are considered, the body to the extent that the victim himself/herself can be sufficiently recognized through a string, as well as other persons.

AE also stated at the court of the court below to the effect that “If the blood transfusion of this case occurred in several hours or through the opening of the head, any other person can also be identified outside the court of the case.” However, on September 15, 2019, the victim attended the court of the first instance on September 15, 2019, the victim was present at the court of the first instance, and then 102 photographs of CCTV images taken around in the vicinity of the court of the court of the first instance at around 17:37, 17:37, and 102, the victim’s head was integrated. If the blood transfusion of this case was at the time, it was possible for the participants, including the Defendants who participated in the court of the court of the first instance, to recognize it. There was no one in AS or DC who participated in the court of the first instance, and it cannot be readily concluded, but the CCTV cannot be seen even in the CCTV photograph of this case.

B) The fact that the victim was suffering from ordinary arms and tension even in the case of the victim about to go back is that not only the victim's dynamic X, the victim's witness, and the defendant's witness, but also the defendants asserted.

After the attending the text of the law, the victim took clothes from N points to give off extracurricular lessons. If the victim left the right side of the victim before the above CCTV image was taken, then the victim could not be exposed to the victim's nature, and if the victim was bound to do so in a prudent manner. 103 that the victim did not do so and the head was bound by N on September 16, 199, when the victim left N on September 15, 199.

C) Examining the victim’s 104 line following the legal lecture of the preceding day of the instant case, as seen earlier, the victim’s N and her nearby the N and her nearby the bP station was involved in the accident of clothes and the extracurricular lessons at the bP station and returned to N in the house on and after 17:12 on the day of the instant case, which is the following day. The middle-line transfusion was generated from the increase of the number of vehicles and the tensions. There is no place or issue that may cause the middle-line transfusion to other people. On the day of the instant case, there is no call between N in the relationship with N, including Defendant C, etc., and no telephone station prior to the taxi station did not have any details of using the card. In light of the fact that the victim’s head was in the vicinity of the victim’s house and there was no possibility that the Defendant had been a different victim other than the above place. If the victim’s self-determination was also raised, the Defendant did not have any possibility to do so at all any other place than the Defendant C’s statement.

라) 증인 AE는 원심 법정에서 '시간이 지나면 (중선출혈이) 흐릿하게 번지면서 명확하게 보이지 않는 경우가 있다, 이 사건 중선출혈이 신선(프레쉬)하다 말하는 것은 상처의 문양이 그대로 남아있는 형태가 비교적 잘 보존되어 있기 때문이고, 가장 최근의 것이라고 생각하였다, 위 중선출혈이 꼭 사망 당일 발생하였다고 단정할 수는 없으나, 모양이 그대로 유지됐기 때문에 하루 이틀 이내에는 위 중선출혈이 분명히 생겼을 거라고 생각한다'고 진술하였다. 증인 AF도 '이 사건 중선출혈이 신선해보이는 상처라고 생각한다, 당일 손상에 가깝다고 보이며 색깔이 좀 더 빨갛게 보이는 것으로 봐서 (해당 출혈이 발생한 시점으로부터) 굉장히 짧은 시간이지 않을까 싶다'고 진술하였다. 한편 증인 Z은 '사건 당일 이벤트가 없었어도 피해자가 사망할 수 있는 상태였다고 판단된다'면서도, 사건 당일 피해자에 대한 폭행이 있었을 가능성이 배제되는 것은 아니며, '이 사건 중선출혈은 비교적 신선하고, 사건 당일 또는 그 전날 늦게 생겼다고 봐도 크게 어색하지 않다'는 취지로도 진술하였다. 위 진술들을 종합하면 결국, 이 사건 중선출혈은 피해자 사망 당일 발생하였을 가능성이 높다는 것인바, 이 역시 위 중선출혈이 2018. 9. 16. 17:54경 이후에 발생하였음을 뒷받침한다.

E) Accordingly, the instant heavy blood transfusion is an upper part of the body newly created after the victim entered the N, which is increased, such as necking, and adjacent to the longer material.

8) Circumstances that there is a considerable interval of time between Defendant A, B, and C to 119 reporting after the contact with Defendant A, B, and C, and that there is no choice but to deem that Defendant A committed an assault against the victim.

A) On September 16, 2018 (hereafter in this paragraph, the date is omitted) around 16:16, the victim sent text messages from Defendant B to Defendant C and sent approximately 20 seconds via phone call around 17:12 on the same day (in light of the fact that the address of the relevant sending base station is Seoul Dongdaemun-gu DD, the victim appears to have existed in his/her residence at the time) around that time, he/she boarded a taxi and left DE. At around 17:48 when he/she was moving to a taxi, at around 17:5:17:53, the phone call again from the 17:5:53, the victim did not arrive in the direction of 17:5:5, the victim did not arrive in the direction of 17:5:6, the 17:53, the 17:66 NN in the direction of the Seoul Metropolitan Government DF building, and the 17:53 NN in the direction of 17:53, the 6:6.

B) As seen earlier, the victim’s pocket book contains contents demanding that the victim be bound to translate the N law thoroughly and within the time limit on the date near the victim’s death. ① On September 8, 2018, the victim was able to have been able to look at the content of the revision ? immediately, and locked. The victim’s 10th day of September 9, 2018, stating that “the victim was shot on the new wall and flick flick flick flick flish 6 p.m.” The victim’s 10th day of September 13, 2018, and the victim’s 10th day of September 13, 2018, stating that “the victim was 10th day of September 16, 2019: The victim sent the above 10th day of September 16, 2010: The victim’s 10th day of September 19, 2016.

C) Considering the above content, currency content, arrival time of Defendant A, B, and the victim, and the victim’s actions, the victim took place in order to arrive at N up to 18:00 after translation of the law, and around that time, the above Defendants are bound to look at.

D) Not only Defendant B, but also other Defendants stated that they did not contact the victim any longer since the promise with the victim was 19:00, and that they did not find any contact with the victim. However, in light of the above recognized facts and the following circumstances, it is difficult to believe that it is difficult.

① During the process of being examined by the first witness as a defense incident, Defendant C made a statement to the effect that, at around 14:00, the victim called “at the N Office,” “at the time of the first investigation, there was a speech to be inside,” and that, as such, Defendant C made a statement to the effect that: (a) at the N Office, the victim called “on September 16, 2018, 17:30, the victim called the victim at several times; (b) the call was going to be going to be going to the victim at several times; and (c) the Defendant D 109 also continued the call going to be called “at the time of the first investigation with the Defendant at the time of the first investigation; and (d) the victim’s promise and the victim did not have been scheduled to do so between the Defendant and the victim.

② However, the Defendant, upon being examined as a witness in the first instance case, was under investigation by the witness, was waiting for the Defendant B, C, D and the victim, and AT meal. The Defendant made a promise to do so on Saturdays ( September 15, 2018), a domination, and expressed that he was waiting for her to do so, and that he was waiting to do so, 11), and Defendant D had already made a statement that he had already made a promise with the victim around September 15, 2018. While the Defendant was aware of the fact that there was a prior investigation by the second witness, the said Defendant was aware of the fact that the promise was made in the second witness investigation, at the DG house (the residence of the Defendant) that he had been aware of the fact that there was a promise with the Defendant, but at the same time, he stated that he had given 10 hours a statement about the said additional promise from the Defendant and that he had given 10 hours a statement about the said additional promise from the Defendant at the same time as DG house (the Defendant’s residence).

③ After the second witness investigation, Defendant D made a statement at N around 18:30 on September 15, 2018, stating that Defendant D had only the victim. At that time, the victim called breadbed that she had been drinking at a different level of 19:00 on the following day. Defendant C also made a second witness investigation, and Defendant C also reversed Defendant D’s statement in line with the changed purport of Defendant A’s statement in 114 on September 15, 2018.

④ The Defendants stated in the prosecutor’s office and the court below’s decision that they reversed the above purport. However, there is no evidence that Defendant A, B, and C, who had already arrived at the place of promise at the time, did not contact Defendant D and attempted to grasp the place of promise after the time of promise. In light of the relationship between Defendant D and Defendant A, it is difficult to note that Defendant D did not arrive at the time of promise without any contact. Furthermore, Defendant A told Defendant D around 19:35 that “I will not comply with the victim’s promise while leaving the fact that it was discovered that it was used by Defendant D,” and 15 later, Defendant D went to the place of promise rather than the hospital transmitted by the victim, and Defendant D did not look at the fact that Defendant D’s behavior at the site and did not appear to have been discovered as Defendant D’s behavior.

마) 이후 피고인 B는 18:42경 N에서 내려와 M빌딩 1층의 구멍가게에 들러 포카리 스웨트 캔 2개를 구매한 뒤 18:44경 N으로 올라갔다가, 18:46경 다시 N에서 내려와 위 캔 2개를 위 구멍가게에 맡겨놓고서 18:48경 인근에 있는 DH 편의점에서 포카리스 웨트 1.5L짜리 1병을 구매하고 뛰어 와 18:50경 다시 N으로 올라갔다116), 이는 피해자가 폭행으로 쓰러지자 피해자에게 먹이기 위하여 포카리스웨트를 사러간 것이고, 캔음료의 용량이 작다는 등의 사유로 다시 병 음료를 사러 간 것이라고 봄이 합리적이다. 이에 대해 피고인 B는 '갈증이 나서 1층으로 내려가 캔 2개를 사왔고, 피고인 C은 안 마시겠다고 하고 피고인 A에게 권하니 큰 거로 사오라고 해서(그냥 놔두고 같이 먹는 개념이어서) 바꾸러 간 것이며, 큰 음료수가 없어서 캔 2개를 맡기고 대로에 있는 편의점으로 간 것이다'는 취지로 진술하나, 피고인 B와 피고인 A만 마실 것인데 놔두고 먹기 위하여 큰 것으로 바꿀 필요가 있는지 의문이고, 그것도 처음 샀던 가게에 없어서 맡겨두고 다른 곳에 가서 사왔다는 것이어서 도저히 믿기 어렵다.

바) 피고인 B는 19:09경 '사람이 쓰러졌다, 의식이 없다, 구토를 하고 있다'는 취지로 119에 신고하였고, 이윽고 19:12경 피고인 A이 피해자를 업고 내려가는 장면과 피고인 B, C이 이를 따라가는 장면이 위 M빌딩 3층 CCTV에 촬영되었다. 위 신고를 받고 출동한 119구급대가 19:15경 현장에 도착하여 19:16경 피해자를 접촉하였는데, 당시 피해자는 호흡정지 및 심정지 상태였으며 동공반응도 없는 상태였다 117). 피해자는 19:27경 구급차에 실려 Q병원으로 후송되었으나, 20:40경 위 병원에서 사망 판정을 받았다.

사) 위와 같이 피해자가 N 건물로 들어간 시점부터 피고인 B가 119신고를 한 같은 날 19:09경까지 사이에는 약 1시간 15분의 시간적 간격이 존재한다. 피고인들은 원심 법정에서 일치하여, 피해자가 사망 당일 N 내에 들어온 적이 없다면서, 2018. 9. 16. 19:00경 피해자와 저녁약속을 잡은 상태에서 피고인 A, B, C이 피해자 등을 기다리던 중, 같은 날 19:04경 '쿵'하는 소리를 듣고 N 밖으로 나갔으며, 이때 M빌딩 3층과 4층 사이 화장실 앞 복도에 쓰러져 있는 피해자를 발견하였다는 취지로 진술한다. 그러나 앞서 본 사정들에 아래에서 보는 수사기관에서의 피고인들 진술의 상호 불일치 및 비일관성, 비합리성에 비추어 이와 같은 피고인들의 진술은 전혀 신빙할 수가 없다.

(1) Regarding the circumstance of finding the first victim

피고인 B는 변사사건으로 최초 참고인 조사를 받는 과정에서 'N 사무실에 있던 중에 밖에서 "쿵'하는 소리가 나서 밖으로 나가보니 3~4층 사이 화장실 밖 앞에 피해자가 쓰러져 있었다'고 진술하여 118), 자신이 먼저 '쿵' 소리를 듣고 밖으로 나간 것처럼 진술하였다. 반면 피고인 C은 최초 변사사건 조사에서 '사무실에서 책 정리를 하고 있는데 계단 쪽에서 무언가 소리가 들려서 출입문을 열고 나가 보았더니 피해자가 복도에 천정을 보고 벽에 기대에 무슨 말인지를 모르겠으나 흥얼거리며 있는 소리를 듣고 "원장님"하고 소리를 지른 후에 중간층으로 내려가는데 원장님(피고인 B)과 A 선생님이 같이 내려갔다'고 진술하였고 119), 경찰 제1회 피의자신문에서도 '본인이 먼저 "쿵"하는 소리를 듣고 문을 열고 나가 피해자를 발견했고, 그 뒤에 피고인 B 등이 뒤따라 나왔다'는 취지로 진술하였다 120), 피고인 B는 제2회 참고인 조사에서 '피고인 C이 운동을하다 말고 출입문 방향으로 가더니 갑자기 "원장님"하고 소리쳐서 본인도 출입문으로 나가 보니 피해자가 쓰러져 있었다'면서 피고인 C의 진술에 일부 부합하는 방향으로 진술을 번복하였다 121).

(2) Regarding measures after the discovery of the victim

피고인들은 변사사건으로 최초 참고인 조사를 받는 과정에서는 '피해자가 M빌딩 3층과 4층 사이 복도에 쓰러져 있는 것을 발견하고서 응급조치를 취하다가 피고인 A이 피해자를 업고 1층으로 내려갔다'고만 진술하였다가, 제2회 참고인 조사에서 굳이 '피해자를 위 빌딩 4층 N 앞 복도까지 데리고 올라갔다'는 진술을 추가하였고, 이후로도 위와 같은 취지로 진술하면서 '피해자를 N 안에 데리고 들어간 사실이 없다'고 진술하였다. 그러나 피해자가 후송된 병원인 Q병원의 의무기록상에는 "원장 B 씨 진술에 의하면, (중략) 4층 FC(N의 오기로 보인다, 이하 같다) 올라오는 계단에서 쓰러져 FC으로 데리고 들어와 침을 놓고 주무르다가 숨을 안 쉬는 것 같아 119신고하였다고 함. 1층으로 옮겼고, 그때 119 구급대원이 도착(후략)"이라고 기재되어 있고 122), 이 사건의 변사발생보고에는 "갑자기 계단 쪽에서 쿵 하는 소리가 들려 밖으로 나가보니 여자가 쓰러져 있어 N 내로 옮겨 응급조치를 하였다는 피고인 B의 진술이 기재되어 있다123).

(3) The report on the change of the instant case at the time when Defendant D arrived at the site includes “N stairs according to D’s statement, which contains 124 because female workers were written in the second floor stairs,” and is indicated as if Defendant D appeared to have been witnessed at the site. In the course of the investigation of the first witness for the change of the case, Defendant D left N to the outside of the first floor, such as the Director, etc. (Defendant B), and the president (Defendant B) made a statement that he was 125 that he was able to take charge of the victim’s arms and legs and artificial shock. However, when the first investigation was conducted, Defendant B was waiting to make a false statement during the investigation of Defendant B, C, D and C as if the victim were to have arrived at the police station before 19 days before the first investigation of the case, and the victim was waiting to have made a false statement during the investigation of Defendant Q 1 and Q 26 days before the last time of the investigation of the case.

(4) Other

N 원장인 피고인 B와 N 강사인 피고인 D으로서는 N의 수련생으로 상당 기간 활동을 함께 해온 피해자를 모를 수가 없음에도 불구하고, 이 사건의 변사발생보고에는 "N 원장 B 상황설명을 청취한 바 (중략) 갑자기 계단 쪽에서 쿵 하는 소리가 들려 밖으로 나가보니 여자가 쓰러져 있어 (중략) 119에 신고하였다고 진술하였고, 변사자의 인적사항에 대해 정확하게 알지 못한다고 진술하였다", "D의 진술에 의하면 (중략) (변사자의) 인적사항에 대해서는 알지 못한다고 진술하였다"고 기재되어 있다130).

H) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the victim did not enter into the N, but could have long been used in the toilets. However, in the situation where the victim, before and after the Defendant’s phone was received, at around 17:53 on the same day, arrived at N immediately below N immediately around 17:54 on the same day, it is difficult to understand that the victim was in a corridor or toilet between the third and fourth floor of the MM building for more than one hour without entering the N, and was in a corridor or toilet between the fourth and fourth floor of the MM building.

In addition, the victim died from the "tension monet" or "the external shock", and if used in the toilet due to the above symptoms (the defendant asserts that the victim might have suffered snow erosion in the process), it would not be possible to take the mind out of the toilet again. At around 18:42-18:50 on the same day, the defendant Eul purchased Makaggrgggrgrgrgr and made a statement that he could not see the victim in front of the above corridor toilet at the time of "the prosecutor's office". According to the above prosecutor's statement by the defendant B, the victim could not lose consciousness from around 17:54 on the same day to around 18:50 on the same day and could not reasonably be used in the front toilet at around 18:50 on the same day.

I) Persons who had been N in the above temporary border is Defendant A, B, and C. As seen earlier, in the situation where the Defendant had the victim complete translation work at the time, it is obvious that the Defendant was responsible for the quality of the Defendant if the victim failed to do so properly. Furthermore, in light of the status of the Defendant’s N and N Director, including the remaining Defendants and the victims, and the attitude of the students, instructors, and trainees, etc. on the Defendant’s job, it appears that Defendant B, and C do not appear to be able to face the victim on the Defendant’s job. On the other hand, there are many circumstances that the Defendant continuously assaulted N trainees, including the victim, while it is difficult to find out the circumstances that Defendant B and C assaulted the Defendant.

(j) In full view of all the circumstances that did not have the instant middle blood transfusion before entering N, as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the victim was killed by assaulting the Defendant by the autopsy, etc. between September 16, 2018 and around 19:04.

9) The accused’s suspicion of special assault after the death of the injured party (the additional indirect situation that supports the accused’s suspicion of special assault)

A) Defendant A’s behavior immediately after the victim was transmitted.

앞서 본 바와 같이 피해자가 2018. 9. 16.(이하 이 항에서 일자 기재를 생략한다) 19:27 경 구급차에 실려 병원으로 후송된 직후, 피고인은 19:35경 피고인 D에게 전화하였다. 이윽고 피고인 D은 19:54경 M빌딩에 도착하여 위 빌딩 2~3층 사이 화장실 앞 등을 살피는 행동을 하다가 N이 있는 위 빌딩 4층 방향으로 올라갔고, 경찰에서 자신이 사건 현장에 있었던 것처럼 거짓으로 진술하였다.

B) Defendants’ cell phone replacement 132

(1) 피고인 D은 2018. 9. 22. 12:35경 AA이 운영하는 서울 종로구 DI빌딩 4층 소재 아이폰 수리점을 방문하여 AA에게 중국어 버전인 아이폰X 휴대전화를 건네주면서 초기화를 요청하였다. 이후 피고인 D은 같은 날 13:42경 피고인 A, C과 함께 재차 위 아이폰 수리점을 방문하여 초기화된 위 아이폰X 휴대전화를 건네받았으며, 이윽고 피고인들은 같은 날 14:33경 AC이 운영하는 위 DI빌딩 1층 소재 중고폰 판매점을 방문하여 중고 휴대전화 2대(갤럭시 와이드, 갤럭시 J5)를 구매하였다. 이때 위 휴대전화 2대의 구입비용 14만 원은 피고인 D이 계좌이체 방식으로 지급하였다.

(2) After approximately 20 seconds, Defendant D visited the repair point of the above Aphones with the male of the above Aphones, and transferred (e.g., the phone numbers, photographs, etc. of the mobile phone previously used by Defendant A to the above Aphone X’s aid. On September 26, 2018, Defendant D sent to AA a letter “I” that “I would be able to seek for the highestest string over the 4 set,” and then purchased the galthophone 4 mobile phone at around October 2, 2018 after visiting the above Aphone repair point.

C) Details of the information stored in the mobile phone after replacement

(1) Defendant A; Defendant B; Defendant C; Defendant C; and Defendant C’s Y5 mobile phone in the aforesaid gallon city, and Defendant D used the aforesaid gallon road. AO team moveded to N on October 3, 2018 and carried out search and seizure. In this case, the Defendants submitted the said gallon instead of the existing gallon to AO team.

In the police police, digital sirens were conducted on Aphone X, gallon city and J5 mobile phones in J5 gallon city among the four mobile phones, but the telephone details before September 2018 and the message details were not confirmed.

(2) 한편 위 갤럭시 노트4 휴대전화의 경우 경찰에서 디지털포렌식을 진행한 결과 2018. 9. 22. 이전의 정보들도 확인되었고, 그중에는 ① 피고인 D이 2017. 3. 30.경부터 그 다음날까지 피해자와 사이에 소위 '스승님 말씀내용' 정리 등과 관련하여 메시지를 주고받거나 2017. 4. 28.경 피해자에게 'BD 법문 경청 숙지사항 공지'라는 제목으로 메시지를 전송한 내역, ② 위 피고인이 2018. 9. 7. 15:12경 및 같은 달 14일 17:29경 피해자로부터 "네 내일 뵙겠습니다"라는 메시지를 전송받은 내역 등이 삭제되지 않은 채로 남아 있다. 그러나 N 수련생들이 매일의 수련상황 등을 공유하는 AI 단체 채팅방에 피해자도 2018. 7. 31.경부터 2018. 9. 6.경까지 지속적으로 AI 메시지를 전송한 내역은 위 갤럭시 노트4 휴대전화에서 삭제되었다가 디지털포렌식으로 복구되었고, 피해자로부터 위 ②와 같은 메시지를 전송하기 전에 피고인 D이 피해자에게 어떠한 내용으로 메시지를 전송하였는지를 확인할 만한 정보는 디지털포렌식으로도 복구되지 아니하였다.

(3) The materials of the cellular phone used by the Defendants have not been verified up to now.

D) After the replacement of a mobile phone, the Defendants’ behavior, attitude of statement, etc.

(1) On September 28, 2018, Defendant B, from around September 25, 2018, ‘the autopsy result and cremation', ‘the autopsy error', ‘the kind of death', ‘the period of chest rehabilitation, ‘the need for autopsy', ‘the degree of autopsy', ‘the evidence of the statement of witness', ‘the time required for smartphone recovery, ‘the time required for smartphone password identification', ‘the smartphone password identification number identification, ‘the DNA identification number recovery', ‘the DNA identification room', ‘the cellphone recovery from the Internet', ‘the police station', ‘the police station', ‘the maximum time required for cine recovery from the Internet' to September 29, 2018, respectively.

(2) 나아가 피고인 B, D은 2018. 9. 24.경부터 2018. 10.경까지 서로 간에 아래와 같은 내용을 비롯하여 향후 수사기관으로부터 조사를 받을 경우의 예상질문과 답변 내용을 정리하는 내용의 메시지를 주고받았다. 아울러 피고인 B는 2018. 9. 30.부터 2018. 10. 1.경까지 N 수련생인 AT과도 메시지를 주고받으면서 한영번역과 관련한 예상질문과 답변을 정리하였고 그 과정에서 2018. 10. 1. 13:54~14:25경 AT에게 "D 님~D 님께서도 짬짬히 복습하셔요~", "AT아 잘못 보냈다 그 윗 내용에 답 바라고 문자들본 후 삭제 바랄게"라고 연달아 메시지를 전송하였다 133).

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C. The judgment of this Court

In light of the following circumstances duly explained by the lower court and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant continued to commit assault, such as taking advantage of her head, friend, etc., and taking advantage of her head, friend, etc., using the briend autopsy, etc., the Defendant committed an act of assaulting the victim, taking advantage of briend, etc. from September 16, 2018 to 19:09 on the same day, and the victim took advantage of briend inspection, etc., and accordingly, the victim can be sufficiently confirmed the fact that the victim caused the death of briended frienda on September 16, 2018. Accordingly, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) The circumstance that the victim paid membership fees to the defendant and absolutely obeys the order

① The Defendant asserts that the amount of money received from the victim or W is not a membership fee, but a “interest on the amount of money lent by the Defendant to the victim as a university enrollment fee, deposit, etc.” However, in conformity with the original judgment, W and X stated that “the amount of KRW 15 million, monthly registration fee, KRW 500,000,000, and KRW 500,000,000 residing by the victim was borne by W,” and W stated that “W was borne by W,” and that “W was paid all the amount of the victim’s university enrollment fee, money used, and money entered in the BC overseas training course.” On the contrary, the Defendant did not submit any objective data consistent with the aforementioned argument regarding the loan to this court, and “W borrowed the security money from the Defendant because W was the victim’s director.” It is difficult to obtain the statement by itself that W borrowed the deposit from the Defendant.

In addition, AD stated in the court below that "the victim stated that he borrowed BC overseas training expenses in excess of 20 million won to his family or relatives," and that it is consistent with the above WW's statement. Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is difficult to believe.

② Around April 17, 2017, the victim South East East X called N where contact with the victim was not contacted. Around the course of telephone conversations, X was an important way to resolve the issue of ‘N', not a continuous lender, but a lender with an accurate promise, and the lender is extremely important for five (5) years in the issuance of a conditional straw. We need to do so. It was so called â……………………………§ ? the so-called â……………………………………â………………â……………â……………â……………â………………â…………â……………â…………………â…………………ââ…………………âââââ……………………ââââââ……………………â………………………ââââ……………

③ Examining the assault face of the video of this case, the victim did not appeal for the pain even though the Defendant, a sound body shooting, continued to have his hair and body for a number of minutes by the autopsy, despite the fact that the Defendant continued to have his hair and body.

The victim, even though he had the spirit of "(b)" of the defendant, is clear (the file name 20180505050505 Do153930 01:02 ). In light of this, the victim seems to have absolutely followed the defendant.

2) Whether the body of the victim was affected by a boom, etc.

① At the court below's decision, the Z (explosive) made a statement that the body was in contact with the cause object when the Z was ordinarily increasing and long softened, and that it would be likely that there would be damage the body of the deceased around it. 138) After this, the Z (explosively, the body of the defendant could not be seen as an 'explosive body' if the body of the victim was 4) at the same time as the body of the victim during the cross-examination. It is not so called 'explosive body' that the 'explosive body of the deceased might be seen as an 'explosive body' or 'explosive body of the victim'. It seems that the 'explosive body of the deceased might not be seen as an 'explosive body of the victim'. It appears that the 'explosive body of the deceased might not be seen as an 'explosive body of the defendant.'

③ The Defendant asserts that the upper part of the verte line of the verte similar to those of the victim’s verte is carried out by a material with the same shape as a solid strings, such as a wood inspection, and that N does not have any strings (Evidence submitted by the Defendant No. 24). However, since there is no bones on the upper part of the verte frame and the upper part of the verte part of the chest, the above argument by the Defendant is difficult to accept in light of the medical professional’s statement that the verte part of the verte, such as a wood inspection, can be divided into parts and the verte part of the verte line may occur on the upper part of the vertele, while the verte part of the verte, such as the verte part, can not be caused only by the groce part of the verte part.

3) Whether the defendant was a motive for assaulting the victim

① The Defendant asserts that, since the N is exclusively in charge of AT in the English translation of the legal text, etc., the Defendant did not request the victim to translate the English translation of the legal text, etc. (Evidence No. 37). However, in light of the following circumstances, the victim is recognized as having been requested by the Defendant to translate the English translation of the legal text, etc.

① The victim’s computer has a file called “legal English translation note”. This is deemed to play a kind of guideline for translation in light of the content of “at that time the documents are stored and kept at that time,” “to be stored and kept separately in usb,” “to appropriately change or use the words as they are, and “to be sent in color.”

① Among the above computer files, there are a large number of files which translated the voice or caption of video images introduced by N or Defendant into English. In particular, the translation file is found in the translation, because it appears that the said English translation is "verification of time" in the said English translation.

CD stated in the court of the court below that "the victim was in English, and the academic paper was written in English. The victim was always translated in what is at all times, and that "N was in English in order to be globalized." The victim stated that "The victim was 146", and the victim was 147 that "the victim was in English." The victim was a multiple major in English.

② The Defendant asserts that “the reason why the Victim did not properly conduct the English translation” is that the Victim did not constitute a ground for assaulting the Victim. However, in light of the following circumstances, the English translation seems to have been necessary to publicize N or the Defendant to the general public and recruit new members.

The Defendant stated in the prosecutor’s investigation that he had a passbook of KRW 900 million in his name, and discovered a cash diversification of KRW 300 million or more in the search and seizure site in N Office 149). While the Defendant was punished as “abstiny labor and literary characters,” the Defendant refused to make specific statements, but in light of the following circumstances, N Members’ membership fees and loans paid are deemed to be the primary revenue of the Defendant.

② The facts that the Defendant received membership fees from the victim, AT, Defendant D, etc. are as seen earlier. In particular, upon examining the video of this case, the Defendant stated that the Defendant “Defendant D gave half of his own property to him,” Defendant D d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d d

④ Since the Victim’s mother, W, around April 2017, suspended the payment of N membership fees, the Victim intentionally acted as if he/she had mental problems for the purpose of continuously allowing W to pay N membership fees.

Ⓒ 피고인 A, C과 X 사이의 2017. 4. 17.자 전화통화 내용을 보면, 피고인은 X가 피해자의 회비를 내줄 수 없다고 하는 말에 다소 민감하게 반응하는 듯 보인다. X가 '입금 안 해도 된다고 하시지 않았어요?'라고 묻자, 피고인 은 '세상에 공짜가 어딨지? 세상에 공짜가 없고 (피해자로부터 회비를 받지 않으면) 다른 사람들하고 형평성이 달라진다.'고 답하였다 152). N의 회원 수는 2001년경 20명까지 있었다가, 2002년 이후에는 8명 정도였고, 2018년에는 7명 정도로 줄어들었다. 153) N에서는 각종 홍보물 154), 문답형식으로 작성된 N 소개글155) 등을 만들고 보유하고 있었다.

C When the Defendant visits AT in the detention house, the Defendant said that the Defendant would become an issue more concentrated than in the Republic of Korea and make it more concentrated in a foreign country, such as ‘N', ‘n', ‘n', ‘h', ‘n', ‘at the time of searching for ‘N', ‘at the time of searching for a related search fishing', and ‘the death', 156.

③ From August 2018 to September 2018, there exist a number of data on the translation files made on the victim’s computer. The victim completed the English translation of “FD Sson’s unexponised Law, Law No. 2638 to 2640, and Law No. 1079, and Law No. 273 (the total amount of 16 pages),” which were assigned to the first week on September 16, 2018. The victim appeared to have been working for the English translation of “FD Spon’s Untar’s Untar, Law No. 274 to 278,” which was assigned to the second week on September 16, 2018, and the victim appeared to have been working for the victim to have been working for the Korean translation of “No. 180,000 on September 16, 2018.”

4) Whether the defendant continuously assaults the victim

① The victim’s private pressure trajection group, which is a private person, is divided into three parts: a day and for a long time by strong external force, and spreads to blood. The victim’s personal pressure trapsies itself or secondary kidy, which results in death. 158)

② Comprehensively taking account of the video images and the victim’s pocket book, etc. contained in NB World, the victim seems to have been constantly and continuously abused from the Defendant in 2018. In particular, the degree of assault is likely to have been more serious due to the victim’s failure to properly perform English translation duties due to the reasons that the victim did not properly perform English translation duties.

③ AT, Defendant B, C, and D are the same as “Defendant A was unable to view the fact at the time of the victim.” However, considering that Defendant A appears to be sufficiently dependent on the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to believe the above statement as it is.

5) Whether there is a possibility that the victim was assaulted by a third party at a place other than N within two weeks from the date of death

The Defendant asserts that during the period from September 8, 2018 to September 16, 2018, during which the victim was unable to clearly prove his/her criminal conduct during the period from the night to the night, and raised the possibility that he/she was able to receive the safe range in neighboring religious facilities, equipment sources, etc. However, the victim’s pocket book does not include all the content that he/she was able to receive the safe range during the said period. In light of the victim’s physical habits, if the victim was injured by the safe range, there is no reasonable ground not to note such content in the pocket book.

6) Whether the victim was assaulted by the Defendant within N between September 16, 2018 and 19:09, which was immediately before the victim died

① The Defendant alleged that the victim did not come into the N on September 16, 2018, and Defendant B and C stated to the same effect. However, in light of the following circumstances, the Defendants’ statements cannot be trusted.

The defendant C responded to the examination of the witness in this court that the lawyer's question is almost 'for example'. The prosecutor's question is not 'for example'.

In particular, after finding the victim's first aid by the defendant A and B, "A and B have taken charge of the victim's hands over, "B have taken charge of the victim's hand over," and "A has made it out of the victim's hand over," and "A and B have made it out of the victim's hand over to the prosecutor's question of "I have taken any emergency measures," and "A and B have not taken place in detail until they move to the above part of the prosecutor's question of "I have taken place."

㉡ 피고인 B는 2018. 9. 16. 18:42~18:50경 포카리스웨트를 구매하러 두 차례나 M빌딩 3층과 4층 사이의 화장실 앞을 지나갔다. 그런데 위 피고인은 검찰에서부터 이 법원에 이르기까지 '당시 위 복도 화장실 앞에 있는 피해자를 보지 못하였다'고 진술하였다 162), 피고인 B의 진술에 따르면 피해자는 같은 날 이 사건 M빌딩에 도착한 17:54부터 피고인 B가 포카리스웨트를 사가지고 N으로 올라간 18:50경까지 무려 1시간 가량 문을 닫은 채 화장실 안에 쓰러져 있거나 다른 용무를 보다가 18:50경 이후에 화장실 밖으로 나와 화장실 앞 복도에서 쿵하는 소리를 내면서 쓰러졌다는 것이어서 도저히 합리적으로 설명되지 않는다.

Defendant B was released from N on September 16, 2018, around 18:42 to 18:50, and purchased Scarwawait two times. In light of the fact that Defendant B immediately cut Scarwait in terms of the CCTV screen located in Jongno-gu Seoul FF and the CCTV screen 164 in this case, including the form, and that Defendant B got out of Scarwait. In light of these various circumstances as seen earlier, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant B was released to purchase drinking beverages to the victim who was used within N.

③ In light of the investigation report (related to photographs inside and outside of the building), 165, and Ma building images166 submitted by the Prosecutor in this court, M is the total of four floors, and N is only the fourth floor. Accordingly, in a case where the victim was exposed to CCTV installed in the third floor, the space where the victim could have been exposed is only N or the front toilet. The victim was aboard a taxi with a view to getting late to arrive at the N up to 18:00; Defendant B and C are N, and around 16:16:17:53, around 17:54, when the victim continued to contact the victim with the third floor of the M building, and the victim did not contact the victim, considering the fact that the victim was exposed to the CCTV installed in the third floor, it is reasonable to view Defendant B and C as Defendant B had no contact with the victim at around 17:54.

④ As seen earlier, Defendant D made a false statement that “A victim was made while entering N at the time of the first investigation of the victim’s death and at the time of the first investigation of the witness.” In this regard, Defendant D made a false statement in the prosecutor’s investigation as above in order to assist the Defendant”. 167) If the Defendants did not wish to make a statement in advance at the investigative agency, Defendant D did not have any reasonable reason to make such statement in response to the statements made by other Defendants.

6. Whether the crime of concealing evidence against Defendant B, C, and D is recognized

A. Relevant legal principles

In the crime of concealing evidence, another person’s criminal case or disciplinary case includes any one that may be a criminal or disciplinary case in the future even before an investigation or disciplinary procedure is commenced at the time of concealment of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1995, Mar. 28, 195; 95Do134, Jun. 28, 2007). In addition, “Evidence” referred to in Article 155(1) of the Criminal Act means any material that an investigation agency, court, or disciplinary agency is related to confirming the existence of the State’s penal authority or disciplinary authority in relation to another person’s criminal case or disciplinary case, and it does not seem disadvantageous to others, regardless of whether there is any value of evidence or not (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do3600, Jun. 28,

B. The judgment of the court below

In full view of the contents of the above 5-B(b) and the following circumstances revealed from the above 5-B, the lower court determined that the mobile phones of the Defendants previously held constituted “Evidence of the Victim A’s Criminal Procedure Act” and that Defendant D intentionally concealed the Defendants’ cell phones, and that Defendant B and C conspired to commit so.

1) At the time of Defendant A’s assaulting the victim at N on September 16, 2018, at N, Defendant B and C were in N, and Defendant D was not in N at the time but in contact with Defendant A and was in N immediately after the victim was injured by the first-aid vehicle. Defendant D made a false statement as if the victim was not in N at the time of the above special assault accident. This is bound to be due to the fact that the victim’s death could have commenced an investigation into Defendant A with respect to the victim’s death. In addition, Defendant B, C, and D made physical violence to the victim on May 5, 2018, and directly observed the above situation. In addition, Defendant B and D made a statement at the prosecutor’s office to the effect that Defendant A had been aware of the victim’s physical violence, including the victim’s death, and Defendant D and the victim’s major persons related to the victim’s death and continued to have been exposed to the victim’s personal experience within a long time period of time after the victim’s death.

2) The Defendants were given and received a large number of telephone conversations and message with the victim, and, in particular, Defendant B sent the message to the female on the date of the victim’s death, Defendant C is the last person who exchanged and sent the victim’s telephone conversations with the female immediately before the victim’s death. In light of the victim and the Defendants’ status and relationship with N, etc., it is reasonable to view that the pertinent telephone content and message content are meaningful materials to clarify the victim’s behaviors and activities immediately before the death, in particular, the victim’s situation and circumstances surrounding the victim’s death and the Ma building where N is located on the day of the death, and it is related materials to whether the State’s penal authority against the Defendant, etc. exists in relation to the above death. Thus, it is evident that the above telephone content and message content were stored in the cell phone four mobile phones used by the Defendants, and that the aforementioned cell phone constitutes “Evidence in evidence concealment” in the evidence concealment crime.

3) Defendant D, in the prosecutor’s investigation, testified to the effect that “the mobile phone used by the Defendants was replaced by another Defendants’ mobile phone because they did not work well,” and that “the Defendants collected the existing mobile phone from the other Defendants and N to receive economic assistance by selling it on a middle and high store,” and did not properly state the previous mobile phone at the approximate point and place of time and place where they were lost. Defendant D, among the mobile phone newly purchased from the prosecutor’s investigation, provided that Defendant B, C used the new mobile phone, and that Defendant D took the purchase cost of J5 on the ground that Defendant D bears the purchase cost of Defendant B, and C’s galtho-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-galth-day-day, and that Defendant D did not know that the above purchase cost was paid by the investigator at the time of simple cash transfer.”

4) If Defendant D’s statement was in need of economic assistance to the extent that it should be sold to another place after receiving a mobile phone from the other Defendants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Do1448, Oct. 2, 2018). Defendant D’s former mobile phone at the time of purchasing a new mobile phone around September 22, 2018, the fact that the other Defendants borne by Defendant D at the time of the new purchase of the mobile phone is not sufficient (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do1448, Oct. 2, 2018). The fact that the former mobile phone at the time of the purchase of the new mobile phone was sold directly to the corresponding mobile phone sales store at the time of the purchase of the new mobile phone, or that the former mobile phone sales store was not found at the first floor of the above building when the defendants found the mobile phone repair store at around October 2, 2018, it is not understood that the Defendants were excessively delivering the previous mobile phone to Defendant 1.

5) Rather, (1) two of the Defendants replaced the immediately following day after the second witness investigation; (2) all of the Defendants were accompanied to the phone newly sought by Defendant A, B, and C, including the details of the receipt of the message from the victim before September 22, 2018; and (3) Defendant D’s new purchase of the galtho block 4 mobile phone remains without deletion of the message given to the victim and the victim until April 2017; (4) on the other hand, the contents of the AI message, which shows that the victim was actively engaged in N around July 9, 2018 near the instant case, was deleted; (2) the aforementioned Defendant’s phone was sent to the victim before receiving the message of the nature of the victim’s answer; and (4) it appears that the aforementioned Defendant’s prior to receiving the message of the victim’s answer; and (4) it appears that Defendant D’s prior to the above Defendant’s search or seizure of the mobile phone; and (3) the aforementioned Defendants’ response to the Internet.

B. The judgment of this Court

The judgment of the court below that recognized the crime of concealing evidence against Defendant B, C, and D by using the following circumstances, which the court below properly explained, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, is just, and the Defendants’ assertion in this part is without merit.

① On October 3, 2018, Defendant B, C, and D asserted that when executing a search and seizure warrant on October 3, 2018, the investigation agency did not seize 4 mobile phones used previously by the Defendants, the said 4 mobile phone does not constitute “Evidence” as referred to in the crime of concealing evidence. However, it is difficult for one person to anticipate that the said Defendants possessed two mobile phones, and the said Defendants changed into “highly large phone”, from the standpoint of the investigation agency, it could not be said that the existing mobile phone was used by the Defendants at the time of executing the above search and seizure warrant. As long as the investigation agency determined that 4 cost of the existing mobile phone of the Defendants did not constitute evidence, the said existing mobile phone was not seized. It cannot be said that there was no evidence as to the crime of this case solely on the basis of the fact that the investigation agency did not seize it.

② Defendant B, C, and D asserts that all the data stored in the existing cell phone were back and moved to a new cell phone. However, at the court of the court below, police officers were engaged in the investigation of the mobile phone from the date of the investigation. Defendant D could verify the contents of the images or letters deleted from the digital siren because it was deleted after replacing the existing cell phone. However, in the case of the rest of Defendants (A, B, and C), Defendant A stated that “A, who was engaged in backing the previous mobile phone X from the previous cell phone, did not look at the data stored in the previous cell phone in the digital siren because it did not transfer the data to the new cell phone,” and Defendant A also stated that “A,” which was already removed from the existing cell phone in the court of the court of the court below, did not transfer to the white phone from the previous cell phone to the white phone, and that the police police did not confirm the contents of the above mobile phone from the above 4th of the mobile phone, X X and 25th of the digital phone from the police police, but did not accept the Defendants’s comments and 28.

③ Defendant D asserts that, before March 2018 and July 15, 2018, prior to the occurrence of the instant case, it was damp enough to frequently lose the mobile phone to the extent of loss of the mobile phone, and that the four previous mobile phone units used by the Defendants of the instant case were lost as a result of the failure to conceal evidence (Evidence No. 26 through 32 of the evidence submitted by the Defendant). However, in a case where Defendant D’s independent loss of the mobile phone was made, it is not more understood that Defendant D kept the previous mobile phone from the rest of the Defendants.

(2) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the Defendants B and C conspired to conceal the “existing cell phone” used as evidence related to the case in which the Defendants died by replacing the “existing cell phone” to another cell phone, taking into account the following: (a) all the Defendants were accompanied to the said place; and (b) Defendant D had paid the Defendants the mechanical value of the cell phone in a lump sum.

7. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts

A. Whether to recognize the crime of concealing the instant wooden inspection as a hidden evidence

1) The judgment of the court below

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant B, C, and D conspired to conceal the instant wood inspection, or that the act of hiding the instant wood inspection during the hours from September 16, 2018 to 20:47, and that there was no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① As a result of the appraisal of the instant wooden inspection, no evidence exists that the victim’s genes, scams, etc. were not detected, and otherwise, that the said scams were used as an assault tool against the victim. In light of the fact that the date of occurrence of the instant wooden inspection was September 16, 2018, and that the time of the first search and seizure was October 3, 2018, the said scamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscamscam

② immediately after Defendant B reported around 19:09, at around 119:12, Defendant B went to the 19:12 floor of MM building, Defendant B and C immediately went to the 19:17:17:19:20, and Defendant B did not go to the 3-minute N at around 19:20, and Defendant B did not go to the 19:27 until the victim was transferred to Q Hospital. Thus, Defendant B could not go to the 19:17:19:20, and Defendant B could not have concealed the 19:27 between the above 19:09 to the 19:27. At around 19:20, Defendant B could not have concealed the 19:17:19:20, and Defendant D could not have concealed the 19:20, while Defendant D could not have concealed the 19:3.

③ Defendant A returned to N in the order of around 19:31, around 19:54, and around 20:07, the Defendant C returned to N in the order of around 20:40. Defendant B appears to have continued to stay in the above hospital until around 20:40 after Q Hospital was made the final determination of the victim’s death. In other words, from around 19:31 to around 19:54, there was only Defendant A, and there was no Defendant B, C, and D. There was no phone call from around 19:35, as seen earlier. However, there was no evidence that Defendant B, other than the Defendant’s statement, provided that there was no possibility that Defendant C was able to keep the phone from around 20:29 to around 19:5, and that Defendant B could not independently exchange and keep the phone from around 19:35 to around 19:5.

④ From September 15, 2018, the witness DC stated at the lower court’s court court’s trial to the effect that, after the completion of the Defendant A’s legal lecture, Defendant A’s high-ranking trainees, such as AX, intended to move to a multi-use room. It is difficult to find any objective evidence clearly contradictory to the witness’s testimony. Although it is difficult to find out a certain degree of objective evidence, the witness DC, in fact, was kept in a multi-use room at N around the time of the instant case, and it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility of continuous multi-use inspection from September 15, 2018.

2) The judgment of this Court

The judgment of the court below is just, and the prosecutor's allegation in this part is without merit, in light of the following circumstances that the court below properly explained by the court below and the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court.

① Since the Defendants (except Defendant D) had changed the cellular phone previously used around September 22, 2018 when being examined as the “person for reference in the defense case”, the Defendants appears to have had sufficient time for the Defendants to destroy or conceal the instant wooden examination.

② AO team executed a search and seizure warrant within N on October 3, 2018, and seized the instant wooden inspection. At the search site, Y, which found the instant wooden inspection, stated in the lower court’s court that “Y was concealed in the office room where “the instant wooden inspection was conducted at a high level of force,” and that “the instant wooden inspection was conducted after they were concealed in the office room where “the instant wooden inspection was conducted at a high level,” and that it was 171). However, at the time, “the instant Damna or Damna” appears relatively clearly and clearly, so it appears that the existence was easily known. In light of the fact that the instant wooden inspection was carried out with other Domna, other than the instant Domna, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendants’ act of keeping the instant wooden inspection in custody of the aforementioned Damna or Damna was detrimental to the purpose of criminal justice.

B. Determination on the omission of judgment

1) Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act does not belong to a person other than an offender, or is provided or intended to be provided to a person other than an offender with the knowledge of the fact after the crime (see, e.g., Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act). Since a criminal offender is interpreted to include an accomplice, the criminal offender may confiscate not only his/her own property but also his/her co-offenders (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8929, Mar. 15, 2007). Meanwhile, since confiscation under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act is arbitrary, whether it is necessary to confiscate even goods that meet the requirements for confiscation is at the discretion of the court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do515, Sept. 4, 2002).

2) In determining the acquittal portion of Defendant B, C, and D, the lower court determined that the instant wooden autopsy was a strong doubt as evidence related to the victim’s death. However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to view that the instant wooden autopsy was directly used for committing a special crime of assault against the victim on September 16, 2018. Therefore, even if the lower court did not separately state the reasons why the instant wooden autopsy was not forfeited from Defendant A, it cannot be deemed that the judgment was omitted. The Prosecutor’s assertion on this part is without merit.

8. Determination as to the assertion of the chief of each sentencing department by the Defendants and prosecutors

A. Relevant legal principles

Based on the statutory penalty, the sentencing is a discretionary judgment that takes place within a reasonable and appropriate scope by comprehensively taking into account the factors that serve as the conditions for sentencing prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, and our Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct supervision, has the inherent area of the first instance trial with respect to the determination of sentencing. In addition, in light of such circumstances and the nature of the appellate trial ex post facto and in addition, it is reasonable to respect the first instance judgment in cases where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance judgment, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of the discretion. Even though the sentence of the first instance falls within the reasonable scope of the discretion, it is desirable to refrain from imposing a sentence that differs from the first instance judgment by destroying the first instance judgment on the grounds that it is somewhat different from the views of the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision

(b) judgment;

1) The part concerning Defendant A

The Defendant, as N’s creativeist, demanded N to obey absolute orders by the victim, who is N’s trainee, and the victim took a bronon for the minor reason that the victim was able to take the bronon. Furthermore, on the ground that the Defendant, who was a bronon, did not take any time to translate the N’s legal text to the victim, the Defendant, by using dangerous objects, the body and body of the victim immediately before death, caused the victim’s death, and eventually, caused the victim’s death by taking advantage of the body and body of the victim’s pocketbook, autopsy, etc., to the extent that a wide range of bronon transfusions were caused to the victim’s arms. The physical and body condition of the victim immediately before death indicated in the victim’s pocketbook, autopsy, etc. is extremely harsh in light of the motive and background of the crime, the means, method, and consequence of the crime, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, etc.

The Defendant, beyond simply denying one’s own criminal act, was committed with an uncompactful defense that makes it difficult to understand, and took an attitude from the beginning of the investigation to the beginning of the investigation to the end of this law. As above, the Defendant’s disadvantage is the circumstances unfavorable to the Defendant.

The defendant has no criminal history, except for long-term probation and one time before probation, which is favorable to the defendant.

In addition, in light of the aforementioned legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the offense, means and consequence of the offense, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or is deemed unreasonable.

2) The part concerning Defendant B, C, and D

Defendant B, C, and D committed a crime with respect to the case of death of the victim, who is the N’s trainee, whose president or instructor is the president or instructor, and they continued to have a non-cooperative attitude in the investigation by gathering in advance the contents of the statement from the investigative agency and gathering in advance. As above, Defendant B, C, and D were disadvantageous to Defendant B, C, and D.

In light of Defendant B, C, and D’s N’s inner position and reputation relationship, the instant crime of concealing evidence appears to be either by the direction of Defendant A, which is absolutely located within N, or by the absolute obeyion relationship formed by Defendant A, at least within the N, and there exist grounds to take into account the details and motive of the crime. Information stored in Defendant D’s cellular phone was not completely deleted and considerably recovered. Both Defendants are first offenders.

In addition, in light of the above legal principles, the above Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., as well as various circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s punishment is too heavy or unreasonable.

9. Conclusion

Thus, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The presiding judge, junior judge, and senior judge

Judge Cho Jae-soo

Judges Kim Yong-han

1) The written statement submitted after the lapse of the appellate brief is considered to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed.

2) The trial records 3492 pages

3) The trial records 3652~3654

4) Recording page 29-31 of the Y Examination Record, S Examination Recording Paper 2 pages

5) Evidence list (only 59-64, 81) Nos. 59-64, 81

6) Both the Defendants and the prosecutors have the grounds for appeal on the admissibility of evidence, and the determination on whether to recognize the admissibility of evidence has the aspects that serve as the premise for the determination of facts, such as misunderstanding of facts, etc., they shall be judged in a lump sum.

7) Serial 27

8) Serial 22

9) No. 42 of the evidence list

10) Serial 39

11) Serial 149-152

12) Evidence records 393, 394

13) Serial 78

14) Serial 183 (First, 1868), 193 (Second, Second, 2019)

15) A public prosecutor or judicial police officer under Article 218 (Seizure without Warrant) of the Criminal Procedure Act may seize any suspect or other valuables left by a person, or any articles voluntarily submitted by the owner, possessor or keeper without a warrant.

16) Serial 42 (403, 404)

17) Although the Defendant and his defense counsel expressed this as ‘the command bar' (Evidence No. 17 of the evidence submitted by the Defendant), they merely appear as the body body, and it is difficult to find any difference between the command bar and the command bar alleged by the Defendant. Even if it is not the wood examination from a professional perspective in domestic affairs, it seems that it was a tree, and it was a form similar to the wood examination.

18) Serial 272 (307 pages)

19) Serial 215 (13 pages)

20) Serial 231 (700, 701)

21) Serial 233 (765), 237 (813)

22) Serial 183 (1868), 196 (2067)

23) Serial 193 (2035 pages)

24) Serial 181 (1834), 185 (1892), 187 (1947)

25) Serial 177 (1801)

26) Serial 177 (1797)

27) Serial 303 (96 pages)

28) Six pages of the examination of AT witness

29) AX Examination Recording Paper 7-9 pages

30) The recording paper of AX Examination 17, 18 pages, etc.

31) The recording paper of AX Examination 12 pages

32) The recording paper of AX Examination 15 pages

33) The recording paper of the examination of AT 11 pages

34) The recording paper of AX Examination 16 pages

35) Recording paper 22 pages of the FB Examination

36) Serial 175 (1791, 1795)

37) Serial 181 (182, 1823), 185 (182 pages)

38) Serial 251(80, 81), 298(581)

39) The entire content is as shown in Appendix 1.

40) Serial 298580

41) Serial 296554

42) Serial 296 (554~578)

43) Contents are as shown in Appendix 2.

44) Serial 85 (733 pages)

45) The contents are as shown in Appendix 3.

46) Nos. 93 (769 pages) and No. 8 submitted by the defense counsel

47) Serial 72 (623~632)

48) Serial 311 (637, 640-643)

50) Serial 226 (20 pages)

51) Serial 279386

52) Serial 217 (80 pages)

53) Serial 177 (1791, 1792)

54) Contents are as shown in Appendix 4.

55) The specific contents of the defendant A and his defense counsel's specific arguments and the contents of their judgments are as shown in Appendix 5.

56) Serial 272 (333 pages)

57) Serial 2

58) As a result of the enhancement of ‘use money', the term is not ordinarily used, but in this case, since Defendant A uses the above term in particular, it is used as follows.

59) Serial 85 (733)

60) Serial 298581

61) Serial 254 (133 pages)

62) Serial 306 (205), 318 (1320)

63) Serial 315 (1302 pages)

64) The recording paper of X Examination Nos. 7, 8, 65) Nos. 33366, 97,9867) Nos 307-30968 is as shown in Appendix 7.

69) Nos. 127 (excluding section 968, Nos. 968, 8)

70) No. 20, Nos. 30 (361, 362)

71) Serial 177 (1801)

72) Serial 85 (732~738, 790)

73) Serial 296 (570 pages)

74) Nos. 324, 32575 Nos. 328, 329, 3338-3407) Nos. 326, 327, 330, 331. 3289 Nos 33281) 254 (131), 2582) Nos. 3254 (131 pages)

83) Serial 26484, for example, around 22:49 on September 5, 2018, the address of the base station on the details of the sending of transportation cards is Seoul Yongsan-gu, Seoul. According to the above usage of transportation cards, at the time of the use of transportation cards, the victim was on board the cG bus at the bus stops at the bus stops at around 22:36 on the same day immediately before the delivery of the said transportation cards. The address of the base station on the details of the sending of transportation cards around 22:49 on September 15, 2018 is Seoul Seocho-gu, and the victim was on board the CG bus at the bus stops at around 22:36 on the same day.

85) Serial 26686 Nos. 272 (333)

87) Serial 272 (286 pages)

88) Serial 272 (295 pages)

89) Serial 272 (299)

90) Serial 272311

91) Serial 254 (129 pages)

92) Serial 2 (43)

93) Serial 303 (47 pages)

94) Serial 251 (103 pages)

95) In particular, from September 8, 2018 to September 16, 2018, the victim's criminal records are as shown in attached Table 8.

96) Serial 264 (232 pages)

97) Serial 95 (786), 264 (232 pages)

98) Serial 266 (274)

99) Serial 254100 Nos. 30 (361-368 pages)

101) Evidence submitted by the counsel No. 14, 15

102) Specific time and activities Nos. 4, 5, 81, 82104) are as listed in attached Table 8.

105 Nos. 5, 82682)

106 Nos. 254 (134 pages)

107) The recording book of the AT Examination Nos. 251 (105, 95), 247 (35, 108) Nos. 251 (105, 95) 109

10) Serial 248(42 pages)

11) Serial 249 (60 pages)

12) Serial 278 (376 pages)

13) Serial 280 (403 pages)

14) Serial 281 (42,423)

15) Serial 196 (2099)

16) Serial 83 (683, 684), 274 (350-355)

17) 3,57,82 (687,688 pages)

18) Serial 246 (21 pages)

19) Serial 247 (32 pages)

120) Serial 247 (56 pages)

121) Serial 279 (390 pages)

122) Serial 342 (1425, 1426)

123) Serial 240 (3,4 pages)

124) Serial 240 (4 pages)

125) Serial 248 (42 pages)

126) Serial 249 (60 pages)

127) Serial 82 (689)

128) 226 (424 pages)

129) Serial 181 (1821 pages)

130 Nos. 240 (3,4 pages)

131) Serial 187 (1970 pages)

132) Nos. 65-70, witness AA and AC each legal statement in each original instance.

133) 72 (597 pages)

134) Recording Paper 2 pages 1, 2 pages 1, 2 of the W Examination

135) Recording notes 2, 3, 32 of the W Examination of Witnesses

136) Recording Nos. 16, 137 No. 296552 of the AD Examination Process

138) Record of the Z examination of the witness

139) Record of the Z examination

140) Record of the Z examination of the witness 21 pages

141) Record of the Z examination of the witness

142) Court records 1345 pages 1345

143) The public trial records 1346 pages

144) Recordings of AF Examination Nos. 20, 145) 98

146) Recording notes 2, 19, 147 Nos. 102 (802 pages) 102

148 Serial 1831856)

149 Nos. 88

150 Nos. 183 (1857~1859)

151 Nos. 85 (73, 738)

152 Nos. 296 (573, 574)

153 Serial 183 (1862)

154) The file name of Nos. 39 (394 pages), 301, “FE apartment front.hwp”. The telephone counseling guidance”

155) Serial 303 (11, 21, 24, 84) No. 303 (11, 24, 84) file names among 301, 301

157 Nos. 254 (134 pages)

158) Record of the examination of the Z witness

159) Nos. 302-304, 310-313160) C Record of the examination of witness 5 pages

161) C’s record of witness examination Nos. 187(162), B’s record of witness examination of the first instance court, No. 46, B’s record of witness examination of the second instance court, No. 273, B’s record of witness examination of the second instance court, No. 27165), No. 79,80166, No. 18167, No. 18167 (1821)

168) Recording notes of Y Examination of witness 54, 169), 55, 56 pages

170) The recording book of AA Examination 3 pages 171), Y 9 pages 172, 52 of the record book of the examination of a witness

173) The recording paper of T Examination 9 pages

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.