2017Gohap172,182(combined)(A) robbery

(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

(c) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

gold)

(d) Larceny;

(e) Violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

(f) Forgery of air defense;

(g) Counterfeiting air defense; and

(h) Special larceny;

(i) Illegal use of air defense;

(j) Unlawful events for the protection of air;

2017Gohap174(Consolidated).Robbery injury (A)

The name of the crime, injury, and robbery

(c) Special robbery (recognized to Defendant A);

Special robbery of Crime

2017.Crona36 (Joint Attachment Orders)

Order Requester

1.(a)(c)(d)(f)(g)(i)i.e., g. (j)k. car;

B

2.(a)(c)(d)(f)(f)avour;

C

3.(a)(c)(d)(f). (g)i.e.;

D

4.Ca. E

5.Ca. A

Park Jong-hee (Court of Prosecution), Park Il-hee (Court of Justice)

Attorney F, G (National Assembly for Defendant B)

Attorney H (the national election for the defendant C)

I Law Firm (private ships for defendant D)

J., Attorney J

Attorney K (Ap. for Defendant E)

Attorney Lat-Law (private ships for defendant A)

December 21, 2017

1. Defendant B

Defendant B shall be punished by life imprisonment.

Defendant B’s Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office in 2017, which was seized by Ma (M) No. 886 from Defendant B, shall be confiscated (No. 1). The attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered against the person who requested the attachment order for 20 years.

Matters to be observed in attached Form 1 shall be imposed on the person subject to the request for attachment order.

2. Defendant C2) Defendant C is punished by imprisonment for 15 years.

3. Defendant D

Defendant D shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 15 years.

Defendant D’s Marui (Ga 100 * 50 vertical length) three (No. 50), three (No. 50), 1 (No. 6), 1 (No. 6), 1 (No. 14) (No. 6), 1 (No. 7), 1 (No. 7), 1 (No. 5) (No. 7), 1 (No. 5), 1 (No. 7) (No. 5), 1 (No. 8) (No. 240), 1 (No. 9* 3.2), 1 (No. 9), 240 breadth), 1 (No. 9), 1 (No. 1) (No. 30) (No. 12) (No. 12) (No. 10) (No. 12) (No. 10) (No. 1) (No. 8)

4. Defendant E

Defendant E shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months.

5. Defendant A

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts and the facts constituting the cause of the attachment order “2017 Gohap172, 2017 Gohap1821

1. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D’s co-principal offender B (hereinafter “Defendant B”) and Defendant C are related to a chain, and Defendant D is the second degree of co-principal in Defendant B’s relationship. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, driving an imported vehicle, arrested and detained a person who appears to have a large amount of money, such as entering a driving range, and then released cash by finding out a password of the said person’s cash card, etc., and wishing to kill and abandon the person who was kidnapped to commit a crime.

A. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, at the same time, attempted to forgee the subject of kidnapping as above, or to operate a registration number plate in the same shape as the previous registration number plate by forging the registration number plate in a vehicle used by the said Defendants and attaching it to the vehicle used by the said Defendants in the course of kidnapping, kidnapping, and escape. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, at the same time on June 10, 2017, made the number and word of “P” number and word in a way of paintinging the number and word written in the actual registration number plate in the dwelling of Defendant B located in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si, and making it possible for Defendant B, Defendant C, and D to gather the number and word in advance, and making it possible to use the c's number and word, and attaching it in the actual size of the registration number plate. Accordingly, Defendant C, Defendant C, and D forged the registration number plate for the purpose of exercising the trademark.

B. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, at the time and place indicated in paragraph (a) and at the same time, use a forged motor vehicle registration number plate by putting the registration number plate consisting of “P” as above, which was used as a siren at the time and at the same time, and operating the said motor vehicle registration number plate at the front place of Qkn Kaol, and by using the forged motor vehicle registration number plate during the period from around that time to June 25, 2017, as if the registration number plate was duly formed, from around June 25, 2017 to around 04:06.

C. On June 24, 2017, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D agreed to find the victim’s vehicle from the “SA golf driving range at the window of Changwon-si” underground parking lot around 17:0 on the 17:00, with his intention to find the victim’s son and drop off from U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U.S. and to capture the victim. Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D parked the MP car prepared in advance along with the above SP car, and the victim was waiting to go back to the above parking lot, after completing the golf practice from the above golf driving range, and the victim went into the above parking lot, and the victim was forced to go into the above MP with the victim’s body, and the victim was forced to go into the back of the above MPP by opening the above passenger vehicle with the victim’s son's remaining in the front MP.

Then, at around 22:35 on the same day, Defendant D driven the above SP to the building of the waste gas station located in Gosung-gun V, Gosung-gun, Gosung-gun on the same day. Defendant B put the horses prepared in advance into the victim's entrance, putting the victim's arms and legs into the back side of the SPP, putting the victim into the back side of the above SPP and prevented the victim from getting off the above SPP car for about 2 hours and 5 minutes. During that process, Defendant C driven the above SPP from the above golf driving range to the vicinity of the above waste gas station, and conducted an inspection in advance, and provided Defendant B with telephone communications, etc. Defendant B and detained the victim jointly. Defendant C and the victim jointly.

(d) Robbery;

Defendant B, Defendant C, and D, as indicated in D(C), deducted the victim’s money and goods from the above victim’s 2, and carried the victim’s 2 and D’s string to the above 2, which were separated from the victim’s respective roles. Defendant C used the victim’s 1’s string line to the above 2, and informed Defendant B of the fact that the victim’s 2 was using the victim’s 2’s string line to the above 3string line, and then, Defendant C used the victim’s 1’s string line to the 1string line, and then parked the victim’s 2ndring line to the 0thring line, and then, Defendant C’s 1 and the victim’s 2nding line to the above 2ndring line to the 0thring line. Defendant C’s 2nding line to the 1string line, and then, Defendant C and the 2ndring line to the above 3string line to the 2string line.

(e) abandonment of a corpse;

Defendant B: (a) murdered the victim T as described in the L/C; (b) called Defendant C by phone call around 01:06 on June 25, 2017, and called “weld D. 4”; and (c) put the victim’s body into the M/C prepared in advance; (d) Defendant C and Defendant D had several stones from the roadside in the road when they returned from the window to the above waste oil station; (d) loaded the Y into the above waste oil station; (e) loaded the mast in a car containing the victim’s body; and (e) had the mast in a car at the above waste station; and (e) from around 02:15 to around 03:17 on the same day, the above preparations were made to the above X M/D between Defendant D and the victim’s body in collusion with Defendant B.

F. On June 25, 2017, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D conspired to use air illicit use, unlawfully used air defense event event, and attach the NN registration number plate which was stolen as described in paragraph (2) to the above SP car at a 08:00 square meters or less, and around that time, up to the 11:00 square meters or less of the same day, the said SP registration number plate was used unlawfully for the purpose of exercising the said SP car by operating the said SP car, and exercised it.

(g) Larceny and violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act;

around 11:04 on June 25, 2017, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, as described in paragraph (d) at the south-gu Seoul Southern District Office of National Agricultural Cooperative Federation for the Victims located in the 55-gu Southerndong-gu Seoul, Gwangju, the same as T placed at the point of port D.

In addition, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D removed KRW 3,40,000 through card loan and cash service on five occasions from the same day to November 11, of the same day, as indicated in the list of crimes in attached Table 2, by inserting the card in the cash payment machine installed at the above point, and inputting the password of the card, which was identified as indicated in the paragraph (d), and then withdrawing KRW 7,000,000 from the card loan. Accordingly, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, in collusion, stolen property from the cash payment machine managed by the victim, and used the strong credit card.

(h) Larceny;

On June 25, 2017, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D also withdrawn KRW 700,000 in cash by inserting the instant card’s password, which was discovered as indicated in the paragraph (d), into the cash payment machine installed at the above branch, at the inciting point of the Plaintiff, Korea Bank, Inc., Ltd., which was located 57, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, as indicated in the paragraph (d). Accordingly, Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, in collusion, stolen the property from the cash payment machine managed by the victim, and used the strong credit card.

2. Defendant B’s sole criminal conduct

Defendant B: (a) around June 15, 2017, on the same day, loaded QM5 automobiles into the front parking lot located in the Changwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter omitted), and removed a registration number plate attached to the said SM5 car by hand; (b) around June 15, 2017, Defendant B and Defendant E are friendships; and (c) Defendant A were in a relationship with Defendant B at the time of the instant case, with Defendant B.

1. Defendant B, Defendant E, and Defendant A met together with their co-principal conduct, such as tight, Kimcheon, etc., and colored a scam for the crime. Defendant B and Defendant E moved into a scam room where they are in business with make, and Defendant B took the scam for money and valuables between Defendant B and the control of the relevant gold pole.

A. From March 24, 2011, Defendant B and Defendant E, together with the injury by robbery, meta by the victim A(54 tax) who is in the fast-si AB (hereinafter referred to as "detailed address omitted) around 14:35 on the same day while black a gold bank for the commission of the crime on March 24, 201, the gold bank operated by the victim A(54 tax) was confirmed to have no other person than the victim AA, and then entered the gold bank with her face by wearing her cap and make. Defendant B was 10 times of drinking the victim's head, body body, etc.; Defendant B was 10 times of drinking the victim's head, her body body, etc.; Defendant B was 3.620,000 won of market price, which is the victim's possession at the display site, and Defendant E was able to jointly take the victim's property, and Defendant E was able to jointly treat the victim's property, etc.

(b) Special robbery;

On March 30, 201, Defendant B and Defendant E, together, trying to take a gold room for the crime at Kimcheon-si around 15:25 on the same day, after checking that there is no other person except the victim AD in the gold room at around 5:25,00 Kim Jong-si (hereinafter referred to as "detailed address omitted), Defendant B and Defendant E confirmed that there is no other person other than the victim AD in the gold room, and enter the above gold room with her face while wearing her cap, make, etc., Defendant B cannot be resisted by the victim B, such as preventing the victim from suffering with her hand, and her her knifeing her knife, her knife, her abrue, her abb by drinking the show room at the seat of Defendant E, and Defendant E took the 1500,000 won of the victim's right to possession of the victim AD at the place of calculation.

2. Defendant A

As described in paragraph 1, Defendant A: (a) confirmed the existence of no customer on each of the above gold banks operated by the victims; and (b) assisted and abetted the above robbery, injury, and special robbery by informing Defendant B of such fact.

【Risk of Re-Crime, etc.】

Defendant B is a person who has committed the crime of murder as described in the above crime and committed robbery two or more times, and is deemed to have a habit of such crime, and is in danger of recommitting the crime of murder and robbery.

Summary of Evidence

"2017 Highis172" and "2017 Highis182"

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Each of the legal statements of Defendant C and Defendant D

1. The legal statement of the witness AE;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant C and Defendant D by the prosecution

1. Each police statement made to AA, AF, and ○○○;

1. The results of an investigation report (AG execution), investigation report (related to the handling of the victim's cell phones), theft report, investigation report (N vehicle number CD), investigation report (specific hours for the crime of theft), investigation report), investigation report (verification of additional lecture amount), investigation report [Attachment of damaged vehicle (U), investigation report (Attachment of photographs of the victim's vehicle B and the upper body photograph), attachment of investigation report (site inspection report), investigation report (site inspection report), attachment of secret recording images of the suspect's statement, investigation report (site inspection report), attachment report (site inspection report), investigation report (finding report surrounding the victim's cell phone), attachment report (information on the victim's cell phone statement), investigation report (finding report related to the victim's cell phone number), vehicle attachment report (information on the victim's cell phone number), vehicle tracking report (information on the contents of the suspect's cell phone number), vehicle tracking report, access report on the victim's vehicle to the investigation report and investigation report on the victim's parking lot, Busan police report, investigation report on the victim's parking lot, investigation report, investigation report and investigation report related to the victim's.

1. A survey report on actual condition, on-site identification reports, reports on the identification of U U U U U U U AD vehicles, reports on field identification reports (with respect to MM vehicles), reports on the field selection of women in relation to the abduction of women, reports on the results of the field selection test of vehicles' blood trace reaction tests, the results of MU serum reaction tests, and reports on the results of field identification;

1. Each protocol of seizure, protocol of seizure (at will), list of seizure, list of seizure (at will), list of seizure (at will), list of seizure (at will) and list of seizure (at will of two cellphones);

1. four photographs of seized articles, four photographs of the damaged vehicle (i.e., the travel of the damaged vehicle (i.e., the travel of the damaged vehicle) and one copy of the screen screen, one copy of the moving video CD, one copy of the WAS installation, one copy of the WAS photograph of the vehicle related to the case, one copy of the WAS video storage CD for the vehicle related to the case, one copy of the WAS video storage CD for the vehicle related to the case, one copy of the vehicle number plate, one copy of the electronic information list, four photographs of the e-mail course, four copies of the photograph by cutting the vehicle at the parking range, two CDs, one copy of the video explanation, and five copies of the message output;

1. The reply to a warrant of search, seizure, and verification, the reply to a warrant of search, seizure, and verification, and the reply materials requested for each communication data;

1. Five copies of a gene appraisal report and a request for a gene appraisal report;

1. A drilling report, a report on the results of an investigation into a person who has suffered from a change, a written examination of a corpse, and a report on verification;

1. The former (explor) and a written statement

1. A list of investigation records prior to the request, summary of investigation, crimes, etc., evaluation of the risk of re-offending, investigator's opinion, results table, PCL-R evaluation table, records of criminal records, abstractss of resident registration cards, copies of life records, results of multi-area personal records inspection, 2017 high-priced174;

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Partial statement of Defendant E and Defendant A

1. Legal statement of the witness AA;

1. Each protocol of examination of the suspect against Defendant B, Defendant E, and Defendant A

1. Each police statement made to C, A, and D;

1. Investigation report (Notification of Wire’s Request for Electronic Appraisal), report on generation (Special Robbery), investigation report (Attachment of CCTV image photographing photographs), investigation report (Attachment of On-site and oil photograph), investigation report (Attachment of On-site and oil photograph), investigation report ( Results of hearing ○○○○○○○ of the 112 reporter), report on occurrence (Robbery);

1. 112 Crime Report receipt and treatment table, certificate of appointment, site appointment, and field photo;

1. A medical certificate;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant B017 Gohap172 case: Articles 338, 30 (Robbery) and 161(1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Articles 276(1) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 329 and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act is limited to larceny; Article 238(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act; Articles 230 (a) and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 238(2) and (1), and 30 (a) of the Criminal Act; Article 238(1) and (b) of the Criminal Act; Article 238(1), and Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 238(2) and (2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; Article 238(1) and (30) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (1) of the Specialized Air Finance Business Act

0 2017Gohap174: Articles 337 and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by robbery) and Articles 334(2) and (1), 333, and 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of special robbery)

(b) Defendant C: Articles 38, 30 (Robbery of Robbery), 161(1), and 30 (Death) of the Criminal Act; Article 2(2)2 of the Punishment of Violences, Articles 276(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 329 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 238(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 238(2) and (1), 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 238(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 238(1) and (30 of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (Unlawful Use of Air); Article 238(1) and 30 (Unlawful Use of Air); Article 238(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 (Unlawful Use of Air); Article 30 (Unlawful Use of Livestock Card); Article 238(1), Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 130 of the Punishment of Illegal Use of Credit Card Act; Article 30 (Unlawful Use of the Criminal Act

(d) Defendant E: Articles 37 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 334(2) and (1), 333, and 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of special robbery)

(e) Defendant A: Articles 337 and 32 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 334(2) and (1), 33, and 32 of the Criminal Act (a point of aiding and abetting special robbery)

1. Commercial competition;

Defendant B, C, and D: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act [Punishments imposed on the crimes of robbery, violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement), and each punishment is more severe robbery];

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant B0 2017 Highis172: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of robbery, each of the types of life imprisonment, larceny, and a violation of the Act on Specialized Credit Financial Business;

○ 2017Gohap174 Case: Selection of each limited term of imprisonment for the crime of robbery, injury by robbery, and special robbery

B. Defendant C: Selection of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of robbery, life imprisonment, larceny, and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act

C. Defendant D: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of robbery; life imprisonment; larceny; and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act;

(d) Defendant E: Selection of a limited term of imprisonment for a crime of robbery, injury by robbery, or special robbery

E. Defendant A: Selection of a limited term of imprisonment for the crime of robbery, injury by robbery, and special robbery

1. Mitigation of assistance;

Defendant A: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Punishment of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant B, C, and D: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (Inasmuch as each punishment was selected for life for the most severe robbery, no other punishment shall be imposed);

(b) Defendant E: former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes of robbery with heavier punishment)

(c) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2 and 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of robbery, bodily injury and aiding and abetting heavier robbery);

1. Discretionary mitigation;

A. Defendant C and D: Each of the Articles 53 and 55(1)2 of the Criminal Code (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da1548, Apr. 1, 2

(b) Defendant E and A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da14488, Apr. 1,

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B and D: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

1. Defendant B on whom a position tracking device is attached and matters to be observed: Determination on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 5(3) and (4)3, Article 9(1)1, Article 9-2(1)1, Article 9-2(1)2, and Article 9-2(1)4 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

1. Determination as to Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. Determination on the intent of robbery

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant B did not have conspired to kill Defendant C, Defendant D, and the victim, and with the intent to save the victim, there was no intention to kill the victim since the victim was dead while taking the neck of the victim T.

2) Relevant legal principles

The criminal intent of murder in the crime of robbery does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned murder. It is sufficient to recognize or have predicted that it is possible or possible to cause death of another person due to one's own act, and its perception is conclusive, as well as that it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault, the defendant is bound to make a decision by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the criminal intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, motive, type of deadly weapons prepared for committing the crime, the nature and repetition of attack, and the possibility of causing death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002).

3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant B may be found to have had the intention of murdered and the victim T. Therefore, Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted.

① The victim T states that the body is small at 164 cm and 46 cm weight (2017 Gohap172 of the evidence record No. 1, No. 889 of the case), Defendant B is a strong body size of 175 cm, weight of 97 km (25 cm) and Defendant B stated in this court that “the victim T’s son and bridge are dead in the situation where the victim’s son and bridge are cut off by cable,” and it can be sufficiently recognized that the victim B, a strong body size, who is the defendant B’s hand, can not make any resistance in the case of the victim T’s neck.

② Defendant B asserted that the victim T was imperpted with the victim’s speech that insultings the parents of Defendant B, and that the victim T was imperpted with the victim T. However, Defendant D’s investigation agency

From west to this Court, even though the victim was arrested, the victim T was arrested, and the victim T was blicked without any resistance from the time the vehicle was transported to the closed oil station until the time the vehicle was transported to the closed oil station. The defendant C also made a statement to the effect that the victim T at the time of communicating with the defendant B from this court to the closed oil station, and that the defendant C also made a statement to the effect that "it seems that the victim T at the time of communicating with the defendant B at the time of the call to the closed oil station," and that it was against the defendant B's assertion (Article 27 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness as to the witness in the trial record).

③ Defendant B did not specifically state what is the insulting speech to the extent that the victim T’s sponsed the victim’s neck. In addition, Defendant B argued to the effect that “the victim’s sponsed the victim’s son’s son and the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son. However, the victim’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son was forced

④ Defendant B asserted that, although he was prepared in advance for magras and cables, he only prepared for kidnapping and did not prepare for murder. However, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the above goods were prepared for murder.

(A) On June 11, 2017, Defendant B purchased Cheong tape at the AJ convenience point located in the Haan-gun AI (2017 Gohap17 Gohap172 386,387 of the evidence records of this case). immediately thereafter, Defendant D purchased marina, cable cryp, cut cryp, and cryp at AK meeting the above convenience point (387 or 390 of the evidence records of this case No. 172). Defendant D, at the prosecution investigation, stated to the effect that “Defendant B purchased the above crypump, cable cryp, and cut cryp to the above cryp to the above cryp to the above cryp to the cryp to the above cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the cryp to the above cryp to the victim.

C. Defendant B, at the time of arrival of a high-end waste oil station, took the victim T into the second floor of the closed oil station building, and stated to the effect that Defendant D would be placed on the second floor of the closed oil station building that he would have the mastrototy, cable, Cheong tape, wire ropes, knick, knife, and cutting equipment located in the vehicle, and Defendant D would have the above paper bank (Evidence No. 1 of the Evidence No. 737 of the case No. 172). However, in light of the fact that Defendant B instructed Defendant B to purchase the above paper bank for any other purpose.

⑤ In the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “in order to verify whether the body of the said victim was rarely located prior to the commencement of the robbery of the instant robbery (Article 726 of the Evidence No. 1st page of the case No. 2017Dahap172).” Defendant B, after murdering the victim T, went to X only about 20,00 hours after moving the victim’s body from the above high sex waste gas station to the X to the X, and then abandoned the said victim’s body to the X.

6) Defendant B alleged that he was aware of having received money by communicating the victim’s family member after kidnapping the victim T and had no intent to kill the said victim. However, considering the following circumstances, Defendant B may be acknowledged that he had an intent to kill the victim after kidnapping the victim’s money and valuables, etc. by force.

㉮ 피고인 B는 피고인 C에게 피해자 T으로부터 확인한 카드 비밀번호 등을 알려주며 이를 확인하라고 지시하였고 2017.6.24. 23:56 ~ 23:57분경에 카드 비밀번호 및 예금잔액을 확인하였다(주식회사 한네트 사실조회회신결과). 그리고 피고인 B는 2017. 6. 25. 01:06:05경에 피고인 C에게 전화하여 돌을 주워오라고 시킨 것으로 추정되며, 피고인 C과 피고인 D가 도착했을 당시에 피해자 T의 사체를 마대자루에 담아 포장까지 완료해 두었는데 피고인 B는 위와 같이 피해자 T의 사체를 포장하는데 30분 이상이 걸렸다고 진술한 것에 비추어보면, 피해자 T으로부터 카드 비밀번호를 알아낸 후 1시간 이내에 피해자 T을 살해한 것으로 추단된다.나 피해자 T의 남편인 AF은 경찰 조사에서 'S골프연습장에서 집으로 온 뒤 부인(T 지칭)이 오지도 않고 연락이 없어 21:39경 전화를 2번 하였으나 전원이 꺼져 있었고, 그 이후 불안하여 수십회 부인의 휴대폰으로 전화하였으나 전원이 계속 꺼져 있어 경찰서에 신고하였다'는 취지로 진술하였다(2017고합172 사건 증거기록 제2권 제23, 24면), 피고인 D는 '피해자 T의 사체를 유기한 후 순천 소재 모텔에 있다가 B가 위 피해자의 휴대폰을 모르고 켰는데, 그로 인해 B가 C에게 "이거 왜 들고왔냐."라고 말하며 화를 냈고 이에 C이 "켜는 건 니가 왜 켰냐."라고 따지며 위 피해자의 휴대폰을 켠 문제로 B와 C이 다툰 적이 있다'는 취지로 진술하였다(공판기록 중 증인 D에 대한 증인신문조서 제22면). 위 각 진술에 비추어 보면 피고인 B는 피해자 T의 가족에게 납치 사실을 알릴 의도가 없었던 것으로 봄이 상당하다.다. 피고인 C은 '피고인 B가 자신(C 지칭)에게 피해자 T의 차량을 운전하여 차량 발견이 어려운 창원 소재 PC방 근처 지하주차장에 유기하라고 지시하였다'는 취지로 진술하였는데, 위 진술에 비추어 보면 피고인 B는 피해자 T이 납치된 사실이 발각되는 시점을 최대한 늦추려고 시도한 사실을 인정할 수 있다.

7) ① In the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant B made a statement to the effect that, “in addition to C and D, there was an act of robbery, for which it was rejected” (Article 764, 765 of the evidence record of the case No. 172). Defendant B made a statement to the effect that, “○○, who was aware of Defendant B, was at the same time engaged in the game and offered a proposal to the effect that, “The Defendant B, who was aware of the robbery, was at the same time engaged in robbery, and the Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “I would cause the death of the following in return for paying money by kidnapping a person” (Article 850 through 853 of the evidence record of the case No. 2, No. 2, 2017 Gohap172).

8) Defendant B, along with E in 2011, invaded the face at the bar at the time of committing a special robbery. While preparing the instant crime, Defendant B prepared and implemented a detailed plan to prevent the exposure of himself/herself and his/her accomplices by forging or stealing a motor vehicle registration number plate, and purchasing a temporary engine for women, etc., Defendant B did not take all measures to prevent the exposure of his/her face and his/her accomplice’s face to the victim. However, the judgment on the goods acquired after the victim’s murder was made.

1) Summary of the assertion

Since the time when Defendant B acquired the victim T’s flive visibility and gold gyms is after the victim’s death, in relation to the above goods, the possession of the aforementioned goods can constitute the crime of embezzlement, but does not support the crime of robbery.

2) Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, around 23:57 on June 24, 2017, Defendant B demanded Defendant C to verify the password of the card in the name of the victim, and the abandonment of the above victim’s body is recognized as having been between around 02:15 on June 25, 2017 and around 03:17 on the same day, and Defendant B is recognized as having killed the victim with the robbery’s intention.

As can be seen, in the case of taking advantage of the means of murder for the purpose of taking property as a means of murder, it shall be deemed that the act of murdering and taking advantage of the victim’s possession, such as murdering and taking advantage of the victim’s possession. As above, in the case of taking the victim’s goods within three hours after the victim’s death, the possession before the victim’s life continues to exist even after his death and the act of protecting the victim’s right is deemed to be in line with the purpose of law (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do2143, Sept. 28, 1993). Accordingly, Defendant B’s taking advantage of the victim’s infinite and gold eass, thereby infringing the above victim’s possession, thereby constituting the crime of robbery. Accordingly, we cannot

2. Determination on the assertion of Defendant C, Defendant D, and their defense counsel

A. As to the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) and the conspiracy of robbery

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant C and Defendant D did not agree to capture, robbery, and robbery Defendant B and the victim T, and there was no fact that Defendant B participated in the victim’s in fluoring of fluorous fluort, and the fluorous fluoring of fluort fluort.

2) Relevant legal principles

Although strict proof is required to acknowledge the criminal facts that constitute the conspiracy or conspiracy in the conspiracy of co-principals. However, in a case where the defendant recognizes the facts directly involved in the act of the execution and denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting such subjective elements are bound to be proven by the method of proving indirect facts that are highly related to the criminal intent by nature of the object (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4947, Jul. 26, 2002).

3) Determination

Examining the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court may acknowledge the fact that Defendant C and Defendant D conspired with Defendant B to capture the victim T and to force the taking of money and valuables. Accordingly, the allegation on this part by Defendant C, Defendant D and their defense counsel is not acceptable.

① Participation of Defendant C and Defendant D in preparing a crime

㉮ 피고인 C, 피고인 D는 본격적인 범행 준비를 시작하기 전인 2017. 6. 초순경 피고인 B로부터 '돈 많은 사람 삥을 뜯자'라는 취지의 말을 들은 사실이 있음은 인정하고 있고(공판기록 중 증인 C에 대한 증인신문조서 제3면, 2017고합182 사건 증거기록 제2권 제42면), 그 후 피고인 C과 피고인 D는 피고인 B와 함께 범행준비를 위하여 다음과 같은 활동을 한 사실이 인정된다.

1. Defendant B, etc. asserted that Defendant B, etc. visited Defendant D, with very rare body oil station, had two stories of high-sex waste gas station from Masan to Masan (Evidence No. 1 of the Evidence Record No. 2017Gohap172 case No. 972 case, witness C in the public trial record) [Defendant D did not have visited the above high-sex waste gas station. However, Defendant C made a statement to the effect that the above high-sex waste gas station was located in the above high-sex waste gas station with Defendant D from Masan to this court, and Defendant B also instructed Defendant D to open the way from Masan to the above high waste gas station, and that Defendant D and the above high-ranking oil station were only 1 of the evidence No. 972 case, and that Defendant D and the above high-ranking oil station were 2 of the examination record No. 97 of the witness list No. 1 of the first 20 of the witness list No. 1 of the first 27 of the witness list.

2. Defendant D’s Defendant D’s Defendant D’s statement to the effect that it was 20,000 S. S. S. 1 to 20,000 a day from the 2nd day after the 3rd day (the 2nd day of the trial record) (the 2nd day of the examination of witnesses), Defendant D’s abduction on June 24, 2017 and directly drives the above S. S. car to the above high-quality waste oil station at the above S. driving range, it can be recognized that Defendant D visited the above high-end waste oil station in advance, 4 M. 20, cut, 170 S. 1 to 387 or 390, 1 to 390, 2017, 1 to 27 U.S. 17, 2017, 1 to 36, 17, 2017, 1 to 36, 27, 17, 47, 16, 7, 7, and 15, etc.

B. Defendant D stated that he was aware that Defendant B would have prepared for entertainment planning company and assist Defendant D to do so. However, considering the following circumstances, Defendant D’s above statement is not reliable.

The above activities, such as visits to the Gosung-gu oil station, preparation of criminal implements, etc., are not related to the establishment of the entertainment planning agency.

Defendant B stated to the effect that her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her, and her her her her her her her her.

다 피고인 D는 피고인 B가 '돈 많은 사람 삥 뜯자'고 한 것도 돈이 많아 보이는 사람에게 접근하여 자신들의 차량이 상대방 차량의 문짝에 찍혔다거나 상대방 차량이 운전하다가 자신들의 차량에 돌이 튀어서 차량 일부가 손괴되었다는 취지로 말하여 피해보상금을 갈취하는 보험사기 정도로 이해했다고 진술하였다. 그러나 다음과 같은 사정을 고려하면 피고인 D의 위 진술은 신빙성이 없다.

As seen earlier, Defendant D was unable to visit a waste gas station in advance and going through the show. The fact that Defendant D purchased Mamando 4, cable, or cutting machine according to the direction of Defendant B is difficult to view that it is related to preparation for the crime of simple insurance fraud. Defendant D did not properly explain the role of Defendant D in relation to insurance fraud (as of the record of public trial, page 43 of the protocol of examination of witness D). In light of the text of Defendant D’s delivery to AP for female job-friendly delivery, Defendant D sent the text of “10 million won or less,” “I will not pay off. I will do not pay off.” From this court. Defendant D’s statement to the effect that it is difficult to 0 million won or less than 10 million won, and that it is difficult to view Defendant D’s statement to the effect that it is highly probable that Defendant D’s insurance fraud was committed through an empirical rule as at the time of the examination of evidence.

② The role of Defendant C on the day of committing the crime was as follows in relation to the kidnapping and robbery of the victim T.

1. Considering that the victim T-A-car operated the victim T-A-car and then driven by the defendant D-C-A-car, the victim’s 2-C-A-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P.

B. Defendant C et al. asserted that Defendant B et al. was aware that he would drive the victim’s vehicle on the day of the crime, and thereafter, Defendant B et al. went to drive the victim’s vehicle on the phone. However, Defendant C et al., on June 22, 2017, before the crime was committed, visited the parking lot of S driving range around 15:53 on June 22, 2017 and parked the vehicle from around 21:17 (Evidence No. 2, No. 317 to 321 of the evidence record of 2017Dahap172). On the day of the crime, Defendant C et al. confirmed the victim C entering the golf, and returned to the victim’s vehicle adjacent to the victim and T, and was waiting to move back to the vehicle again, and Defendant C et al. did not have any assertion that C et al. served as the victim’s own responsibility as above.

③ The role of Defendant D on the day of committing the crime was as follows in relation to the kidnapping and robbery of the victim T.

1. Defendant B: (a) drive the said vehicle to be loaded on the passenger car at the SP site by kidnapping the victim T to move the said vehicle to the SP site; (b) set the Defendant B and the victim T to the above waste oil station; and (c) set the paper door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, which was prepared in advance for the said SP vehicle, brought to the second floor of the above MP site building. On March 3, 200, Defendant B driven the said vehicle in accordance with Defendant B’s order, leaving the said vehicle to Defendant C, who abandoned the said victim’s vehicle, and returned to the above sexual waste oil station.

B. In this Court, AE observed the scene where Defendant B et al. transported the victim T, which had taken a view that, at the underground parking lot of the golf practice range, the vehicle was coming to a large seat, the rear seat door was opened, and the female bridge was moved to the inside of the open door. However, the driver stopped the vehicle and shut down the rear seat. However, the Defendant D stated to the effect that “IE was too unreported and unreported at that time without reporting to the police at that time” (Articles 2 and 3 of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses against AE in the trial record). In light of the above statements, it is difficult to view that the act of the Defendant D’s above is an act of a person who could not at all predicting the victim T in light of the empirical rule.

B. As to the conspiracy of robbery

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant C and Defendant D did not intend to kill the victim after kidnapping the Defendant B and the victim T, and the Defendant B could not have predicted the murder of the victim at all.

2) Relevant legal principles

The crime of robbery is an intentional crime, and the crime of robbery is an aggravated crime and does not require an intentional murder. Thus, if several persons jointly commit robbery, if one of them commits robbery, the offender is liable for the attempted murder, and if another accomplice has jointly committed an intentional murder, he/she shall be liable for the attempted murder, and if another accomplice has jointly committed an intentional murder, he/she shall also be liable for the attempted murder or attempted murder (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2156, Nov. 12, 1991). Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements of the crime through functional control based on his/her intent and common intent, and even if some of the constituent elements of the conspiracy have not been carried out directly, it shall not be deemed that 201.25Da16294, Dec. 16, 2005, which is declared by 201.

3) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that there was at least a combination of intent to kill the victim T, at least impliedly, between Defendant B, Defendant C, and Defendant D, and the fact that the victim conspireded to kill the victim T. Therefore, it does not accept this part of the assertion by Defendant C, Defendant D, and their defense counsel.

(1) Preparation of tools to commit crimes for murder.

Defendant D purchased, in accordance with Defendant B’s instructions, Magrostru 4, cables, cutting machines, etc. (as evidence of 2017Dahap182, No. 2, No. 56 of the evidence of this case). Defendant D asserted that he did not bring the paper bags to the second floor of the closed oil station building of the closed oil station of which the victim transported by Defendant B to the second floor of the high volume waste oil station building of the closed oil station of this case (as for Defendant D, he did not bring the above paper bags to the second floor of the closed oil station of this case).

However, Defendant B consistently stated that he brought the above paper to Defendant D from the investigative agency to this court, and consistently stated that Defendant B went back to the second floor of the building of the waste gas station (Article 2 of the evidence record of 2017Dahap182). Defendant B was in a situation where the victim T which was faced by Defendant B was laid down at the time. At the time, the time was in a situation where the victim T which was faced with the victim at around 20:30 had no light in the vicinity of the waste gas station and it was very difficult for Defendant B to find the above paper bank, taking account of the fact that Defendant B was very difficult for Defendant B to bring the victim to the above paper bank.

② As seen earlier, Defendant C and Defendant D made a prior preparation for robbery with Defendant B, and even on the day of the commission of the robbery, Defendant C operated a car of the victim T and abandoned it to the PC parking lot located in the original PC located in the Changwon. Defendant D performed the role of confirming the card password and making a deposit balance statement, and Defendant D driving a car of the victim T with the victim T and driving it to the high-sex waste oil station, thereby bringing the Defendant B and the victim into the Defendant T. In particular, Defendant D was able to easily kill the said victim.

C. Defendant D did not take all measures to prevent the victim from being exposed to his face, etc. other than using a her mother at the time of kidnapping the victim T in order to use it for a crime (a statement to the effect that the driver was using the her mother). Defendant D used the her mother in order to prevent exposure in the process of killing the victim T and withdrawing money with the said victim’s card.

(3) Confirmation of whether a victim T is alive.

Defendant C and Defendant D acknowledged the fact that Defendant D her friended to Defendant C by her heading Defendant C at her head and return to Defendant C’s heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading her heading

④ Although Defendant C was 1 at the time of the above-mentioned investigation by Defendant C’s 1 and 2, the victim’s 1 and the victim’s 2 were not able to confirm again the use or size of 31 of the trial records (the record of the trial record No. 31 of the victim’s 7) and Defendant D also asked Defendant C to the effect that the victim’s 1 and the victim’s 2 were able to look at the body of Defendant C’s 1 and the victim’s 7 of the trial records No. 2 of this case’s 7 of this case’s 1 and 7 of this case’s 7 of this case’s 1 and the victim’s 2 of this case’s 7 of this case’s 1 and 7 of this case’s 7 of this case’s 1 and 7 of this case’s 3 of this case’s 1 and 7 of this case’s 14 of this case’s crypt evidence.)

5. Defendant C’s behavior after murdering the victim T;

Defendant D testified to the effect that, from the investigative agency to this court, Defendant D abandoned the body of the victim from “Y,” and that “B puts the body and shoulder of B,” the latter part of the defect, “B,” and “B, without any exception, talks with “B, ......... in the latter part of the defect?” Defendant D’s statement to the effect that “I talked with the victim in connection with the murder of T.,” such as “B’s answer to the defect,” “B,” which read, “I do not have any so......” Defendant D, as the above, stated the situation in detail and consistently immediately after the dead body was abandoned, and there is no motive for Defendant D to make a false statement of the above contents of the conversation, and thus, Defendant D’s above statement is credibility.

B. Defendant D’s statement to the effect that “I am unsatisfying up to the second floor of the 2nd floor of the building,” or that C amsatisfying down to the floor, and that I amsatisfying up to B and C when I amsat, I am at the trial record Nos. 15, 34 of the Protocol of Examination of Witnesses. I am at the second floor of the 2nd floor of the closed oil station building, and I am amsatfying up to two amsaty, I amsatfying off the 7th floor of the 6nd floor of the 6nd floor of the 1st day, and I am at the 7th day of the 1st day of the 7th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 6th day of the 30th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 36th day of the 3th day of the 3th day of the am.

6) After the victim’s murder, Defendant D’s behavior returned to the closed oil station and went to the second floor of Defendant C, and there was 2 Malulu lu 2 packaging at the time, and even if the victim T does not appear, Defendant B did not confirm the location of the victim T (in the trial record, page 47 of the witness examination protocol as to the witness D). Defendant D committed the remaining crime as planned by Defendant B, even after Defendant B murdered the victim T and abandoned the body of the said victim, with Defendant B and Defendant C, by wearing a female-use temporary launch prepared in advance while going to the victim with Defendant B and Defendant C, and withdrawing cash with the victim’s card.

C. Defendant C, in the prosecutor’s investigation, abandoned the Victim T’s body, and himself, with Defendant B, had been aware of his head in the beauty room, and D had been gameed in the PC (Article 878 of the Evidence No. 1 of the case No. 2017Dahap172). As to air-defense, Defendant C expressed to the effect that he had been aware of his head in the beauty room (C).

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant C and Defendant D did not know that the number was used in the automobile registration number plate at the time, according to Defendant B’s instruction, but did not intend to commit an act under the air protection, since they did not know that the number was used in the said Article.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant C and Defendant D may recognize the forgery of a registration number plate and the forgery of the “P” registration number plate according to the direction of Defendant B. Accordingly, Defendant C, Defendant D and their defense counsel do not accept the allegation on this part. ① As seen earlier, Defendant C and Defendant D conspiredd to capture a large number of persons with Defendant B and their defense counsel to force the taking of money and valuables by force, and otherwise it is recognized that there was no other business or activity plan between Defendant B, etc., and thus, Defendant C and Defendant D were sufficiently aware that the work directed by Defendant B was related to the crime of kidnapping and robbery.

② Defendant C made a statement to the effect that Defendant B had a motor vehicle registration number changed at one location, including Defendant B, and Defendant B had a scambling and scambling, and Defendant C made a statement to the effect that Defendant C had a scambling (in the public trial records, page 16 of the protocol of examination of witnesses C), Defendant B also made an scambling of numbers (in the public trial records, page 11 of the protocol of examination of witnesses as of October 16, 2017, page 11 of the protocol of examination of witnesses as of October 16, 2017), and Defendant D made a statement to the effect that “I scambling and scaming the scambd' from this court” (in the public trial records, page 48 of the protocol of examination of witnesses D). However, if an adult has a common sense, it can be sufficiently recognized that the above working registration number was made if he/she was a witness with the above ordinary sense.

D. As to the abandonment of the body

1) Defendant C.

A) Summary of the assertion

There is no fact that Defendant C participated in, or conspired with Defendant B, or Defendant D to abandon the victim’s corpse.

B) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant C may be recognized as having abandoned the body of the victim in collusion with Defendant B and Defendant D. Accordingly, Defendant C and its defense counsel cannot accept this part of the assertion.

① As seen earlier, it is recognized that there was a combination between Defendant B, etc. of intent to kill the victim who had been kidnappedly, and the crime of abandonment of the body was intended to conceal the above crime by Defendant B, etc.

② Defendant C received an instruction from Defendant B that she would see the stone on the way that she returned to a sexual waste gas station, and, along with Defendant D, took care of the stone necessary to abandon the body of the victim and clothes of the said victim, and it is recognized that Defendant C and D were used to add the weight of each mast, containing the body and clothes of the said victim.

③ Defendant C, on the second floor of the building in the above Gosung waste gas station, where Defendant B and Defendant D used the gardones in light of the above gardones, and acknowledged the fact that Defendant C used a small amount of gardos in which the above victim’s clothes were contained, and carried the gardos in the back of the above strings (section 38 of the protocol of examination of the witness C in the trial record). Defendant B and Defendant D moved in the X to abandon the above victim’s body to abandon the above victim’s body. Defendant B and Defendant D waited within the above strings car when they abandoned the victim’s body, etc.

2) Defendant D

A) Summary of the assertion

Although Defendant D had Y in accordance with Defendant B’s instruction, Defendant D did not recognize the fact that he was the victim’s dead body, there was no intention to abandon the dead body.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, Defendant D may recognize the fact that he was abandoned in Y with the recognition of the fact that he was the victim T’s dead body. Accordingly, Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

① As seen earlier, it is recognized that there was a combination between Defendant B, etc. with the intent to kill the victim who had been captured at least implicitly.

② As seen earlier, Defendant D instructed Defendant D to walk up stone on the way that Defendant C was aboard and returned to the above Gosung waste oil station, and Defendant D had a stone equivalent to 6.2 km, 2.5 km, and 3.2 km.

③ Defendant D, at the time of arrival of the second floor of the building of the building of the above high-sex waste gas station, did not seem to have been the victim T, and there was two Malulululux. One of the above situations was that Defendant D, alone, moved to the vehicle, and the vehicle was moved to the vehicle, so it was sufficiently recognizable that there was the victim’s dead body in the Malulux.

(e) As to forged air defense events, unlawful use of air defense, and unlawful use of air defense (Defendant C)

1) Summary of the assertion

(1) Defendant C did not have attached a forged motor vehicle registration number plate to the vehicle or operated the vehicle with the forged motor vehicle registration number plate attached.

② Defendant C did not have attached the “N” registration number plate that Defendant B stolen to the vehicle or driven the vehicle to which the said registration number plate was attached.

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by this court, Defendant C is liable for the crime of the use of forged air by Defendant B and Defendant D, the use of air conditioning, and the crime of the unlawful use of air defense as co-principal. Accordingly, this part of the assertion by Defendant C and their defense counsel is not acceptable.

① As seen earlier, Defendant B, etc. conspiredd to commit robbery in advance, Defendant C, etc. may recognize the fact that Defendant C, driving a victim T-Addi vehicle, abandons it at another place, confirmed the victim T-T secret number, and performed the role of checking the balance of the said victim’s account.

② The purpose of a forged air defense event is to prevent the exposure of the identity of the defendant B, etc. during the course of checking the place of kidnapping, the place of detention, the place of detention, etc. of the kidnapped victim while preparing for robbery, and the crime committed for the purpose of avoiding the police tracking in the course of the escape of the defendant B, etc. after committing robbery.

③ Defendant C, while being aware that Defendant B et al. had forged registration number plate or Defendant B stolen registration number plate and operated the vehicle, he was on board the said vehicle for the foregoing purpose.

(f) Larceny and violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act (Defendant D);

1) Summary of the assertion

It is Defendant C and Defendant D did not take part in the lending of card loan and cash service with the victim T card.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, namely, the fact that Defendant B, etc. conspiredd to commit robbery; Defendant C and Defendant D have withdrawn money using the victim T-related card by performing a shared own role; Defendant D recognized that one million won of the withdrawn money was received (Article 2, No. 74 of the Evidence No. 2 of the case Record No. 2017Gohap182), etc., Defendant D is liable as a co-principal for the part that Defendant C withdrawn by the victim T-related card. Accordingly, Defendant D and his defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

3. Determination on Defendant E and his defense counsel’s assertion

A. As to the robbery, injury, and special robbery

1) Summary of the assertion

Defendant E, between Defendant B and Defendant B’s attention, there was no possibility for Defendant E to commit an act of assaulting the bank leader to commit an act of assaulting and threatening the bank leader, and there was no possibility for Defendant B to commit an act of assaulting the bank leader to inflict an injury.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, it is recognized that Defendant E had conspiredd to commit each of the special robbery of this case with Defendant B, and that the victim could suffer injury due to the assault of Defendant B in the course of committing the special robbery. Accordingly, it is recognized that the facts could have been predicted. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant E and his defense counsel is not acceptable.

① At the time of the prosecutor’s investigation, Defendant B made a consistent statement to the effect that “When she became aware of gold in the smuggling, she was planning to take the role of generating precious metal, she was in charge of suppressing gold, and she was also in charge of committing the crime in Kimcheon.” (No. 340, 341, 344, 346 of the evidence record of 2017Dahap174) and Defendant E also made a statement to the effect that “Wer (E),” from the investigation stage to the present court, she was in charge of gold, and she was consistent with the above statement of Defendant B.

② Defendant E made a statement to the effect that “B would leave the main seal” in this court that “If the main agent interferes with or intends to interfere with the theft of a harsh object, he would not put the body of the main agent into a brupt horse or set off a brupt to prevent the main agent from leaving the brupt or leaving the body of the main agent into a brupt (Article 2 and 3 of the Defendant’s Examination Protocol against Defendant E in the trial record).”

③ The victim made a statement to the effect that “A” was made by 2 South and North Korea, one of them was drinking immediately to her (A's name), and that the remaining one was also a male who escaped from her (A's name) by deducting several Bans on display (2017da174) (No. 2, No. 51 of the evidence record of the case, No. 1, No. 1, 2 of the record of the trial). The victim made a statement to the effect that “A” of the victim was able to drink her, and the victim was her seated with her seated with her seated with her seat above the display stand, and that there was no assault between her male and her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with her seated with the victim.

④ Defendant B and Defendant E made a statement to the effect that “A, at the time of the police investigation, took a son’s son’s son’s son and son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’

B. As to the occurrence of injury

1) Summary of the assertion

On March 24, 2011, at the time of robbery, Defendant B’s assault did not inflict any injury on the victim A.

2) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court, the victim AA is recognized as having suffered an injury due to the robbery committed by the defendant B and the defendant E on March 24, 201. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by the defendant E and its defense counsel is not acceptable.

① In this Court stated that “A” was hospitalized at the hospital immediately after the victim was victimized by the robbery of this case (in the trial record, page 12 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness to AA), and that “the bones of the body” in relation to the body in the police investigation is not abnormal, but is currently being hospitalized in the process of being hospitalized in the hospital by suffering spambry for telegraph (Article 2 of the Evidence Record of the case No. 2017 Gohap174).

② According to the medical certificate prepared by AR by a doctor who treated AA, the above victim suffered bodily injury, such as inside and outside of the inner part, the 2nd part, the 2nd part, the right slot part, the left part, the left part, the mouth of oral occupation, and the fact that he/she had been in need of pharmacologic and physical treatment (Article 2 of the Evidence Record of the case No. 56).

③ In the police investigation, the victim A made a statement to the effect that he/she had the head, face, etc. of drinking from 1 South Korea, and that he/she (A's name) taken place beyond the floor to go beyond the floor (Article 2, No. 52, No. 2, No. 2, No. 174 of the Evidence Records of the case) and the part that the victim made a statement that he/she was assaulted and the part of the injury indicated in the above diagnosis are considerably identical.

④ The victim AA was hospitalized for five days from March 24, 201 to March 28, 2011 by Defendant B, and was hospitalized for five days from March 24, 2011. During the above period of hospitalization, it is recognized that he/she was subject to pharmacologic treatment, such as dysium, fysium, and fysium, to treat the above treatment (the medical records, diagnosis certificates, and medical records of the case 2017Dahap174). The judgment on the risk of recidivism by Defendant B

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, including the above evidence and the statement of claim investigation, as well as the age, environment, motive, method, social ties, etc. of Defendant B, it is recognized that Defendant B is likely to recommit the murder and robbery.

① On March 2011, Defendant B identified the object of a crime among unspecified persons in order to prevent robbery and special robbery on and around June 24, 2017, and to take money or valuables from robbery, Defendant B planned and executed the crime under the lead, and the method of committing the crime was much reduced and sealed by repeating each crime.

② Defendant B used or injured each victim’s direct violence, and murdered the victim T with his hand in which both hand and hair do not breath because he committed robbery. Each of these acts reveals considerable violent inclinations and attitude toward life hump.

③ As a result of the evaluation of the Korean-style adult recidivism risk assessment level (KORAS-G) with respect to Defendant B, the risk of recidivism was assessed to be 14 points in total, and the risk of recidivism was assessed to be 14 points in total as the result of the examination of the PC-R test (PCL-R), and the risk of recidivism was assessed to be the intermediate level. The "comprehensive evaluation result of the risk of recidivism in the investigation report before the request" is "high risk of recidivism" (in light of economic difficulties, it is deemed that the risk of recidivism is high," and its compliance consciousness, such as easily considering the strength of the crime, is weak, and it is judged that the risk of recidivism is high, and that the risk of recidivism in the robbery is judged to be "the intermediate risk of recidivism" (in case of a person, it cannot be determined to be considered that the risk of recidivism could not be determined to be included in the calculation of the risk of recidivism, and thus, it cannot be ruled out that the risk of recidivism was not aggressively aggressive.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant B

The scope of applicable sentences under the law: Scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria for life imprisonment: The sentencing criteria shall not apply since the crime of robbery in the case of 2017Dahap172 and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) constitute ordinary concurrent crimes among the crimes in the judgment, falls under five).

The actual provisions of each sentence shall be decided.

(1) Unfavorable circumstances

Defendant B, along with Defendant E in 2011, did not reveal the above facts after committing the robbery, injury by robbery, and special robbery with Defendant E, thereby preventing the crime of robbery in this case, which was more closely planned and the punishment was more severe.

- Defendant B did not appear to have an attitude against the victim B, such as denying the intent of murdering the victim, even though the victim B was killed with stroke by strokes and strokes, which cannot be resisted by combining strokes and strokes;

Defendant B led each of the instant crimes, instructed accomplices to commit each of the instant crimes, and ordered them to commit each of the instant crimes, and Defendant B did not take any measures to recover from victims’ damage.

- The bereaved family members of the victim T wish to bring the severe punishment of Defendant B

◎ 유리한 정상

- The victim AA of the crime of robbery has no record of criminal punishment exceeding a fine to be imposed against the defendant B.

(6) The punishment as ordered shall be determined, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime.

2. Defendant C.

The scope of applicable sentences under the law: 10 to 50 years of imprisonment: Scope of recommended sentences in accordance with the sentencing guidelines: The crime of robbery among the crimes in the judgment of the court and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) constitute ordinary concurrent crimes, and thus, the sentencing guidelines do not apply.

The actual provisions of each sentence shall be decided.

◎ 불리한 정상

Defendant C did not appear to have an attitude against each of the instant crimes, such as denying most of the instant crimes.

- Defendant C does not take any measures for the recovery of damage by the victim, etc.

- The circumstances in which the bereaved family members of the Victim T are favorable to Defendant C’s severe punishment

Defendant C’s initial charge

- The degree of participation in each crime is relatively relatively more severe than Defendant B.

- Family members of Defendant C want the Defendant C’s prior wife

(1) The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, including the age, character and conduct, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense.

3. Scope of applicable sentences under Defendant D’s law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 years from 50 years.

The scope of recommendations based on the sentencing criteria: The circumstances which are disadvantageous to the decision-making of sentencing criteria, since the crime of robbery among the crimes in the judgment and the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) constitute ordinary concurrent crimes.

Defendant D did not appear to have an attitude against each of the instant crimes, such as denying most of the instant crimes, and Defendant D did not take any measures to recover the damage of the victim, etc.

- The circumstances in which the bereaved family members of the Victim T are favorable to Defendant D’s severe punishment

- Defendant D did not focus on the degree of participation in each crime compared to Defendant B, who was the first offender.

- The branch of Defendant D’s wife as Defendant D’s wife

(2) The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, including Defendant D’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of crime, and circumstances after the crime.

4. 피고인 E법률상 처단형의 범위: 징역 3년 6월~22년 6월 ◈ 양형기준상 권고형의 범위

○ Basic Crime: Injury by robbery.

[Determination of Types] In the event of injury, the type 2 (Special Robbery)

[Special Exemplarys] Reductions: Insignificant bodily injury or negligence, and Non-influor of Punishment

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Special Mitigation Area, Imprisonment of one year to six years

○ Minority Crime: Special robbery

[Determination of Type] General Criteria> Type 2 (Special Robbery)

[Special Sentencings] Reductions: Non-Punishments

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Reduction Area, Imprisonment of 2 years to 6 months

○ The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years to six months to eight years;

(1) Unfavorable circumstances

- Defendant E does not appear to have an attitude of denying and opposing the main parts of each of the instant crimes, such as conspiracy to commit robbery and occurrence of injury by the victim AA.

(1) favorable circumstances

- The degree of participation in each crime is relatively relatively more severe than Defendant B.

- Defendant E compensates and agrees for damage to AA and AD, the victim of each of the crimes of this case - The victim of each of the crimes of this case, the victim of the crime of this case, the victim of the crime of this case, the victim of the Defendant E’s wife of Defendant E

- Defendant E has no record of criminal punishment beyond a fine

(1) The punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the instant trial process, including Defendant E’s age, character and conduct, motive and means of a crime, and circumstances after a crime.

5. Defendant A

The scope of applicable sentences under the law: The scope of recommended sentences on the sentencing guidelines between September and March 11, 190: A person who is an assistant shall not be subject to the sentencing guidelines, as he/she is an assistant.

The actual provisions of each sentence shall be decided.

◎ 유리한 정상

- Defendant A’s aiding and abetting the robbery, injury, and special robbery

- Defendant A shall compensate and agree for damage to A and AD, the victim of each of the instant crimes, - The victim of each of the instant crimes, A, AD, and Defendant A, who are the victim of each of the instant crimes, want the Defendant’s wife.

- Defendant A is an initial offender

(1) The punishment as ordered shall be determined, comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing revealed in the course of the instant trial, such as the age, character and conduct, motive and means of the offense, and circumstances after the offense.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

B and E are friendships, and Defendant A, who had a relationship with B at the time of the instant case, concluded that Defendant B was able to take money and valuables in a way that he/she spaws together with B and E, spaws together with spaws, Kimcheon, etc., and that he/she spaws and spaws in a gold room where he/she is engaged in business with spaws, etc., and B and B got into a gold room where he/she controlled the relevant gold hold, and Defendant A wishes to take money and valuables by disposing of the precious metal that he/she spaws and spaws around

A. From March 24, 201, around 14:35 of the same day, the Defendant A (54 years of age) operated by the Victim A (hereinafter referred to as “A”), who was under the CB at Pingyang-si around 14:35 of the same day (hereinafter referred to as “detailed address omitted), injured by robbery, Defendant A confirmed that he/she had no customer in the B and E, informed him/her of the fact, and waiting for a parked vehicle in the vicinity. B and E confirmed that there is no other person than AA in the victim’s face at Ping-si, Defendant B entered the above bank with 10 minutes of her head, body body, etc., and her 10 minutes, she was unable to reflect the victim’s her head, body, etc., and she was placed at the victim’s location, and Defendant B and 260,000 won of her property and her market price in collusion with the victim’s 360,000 won of her market price.

(b) Special robbery;

Defendant A, at around 15:25 on March 30, 201, was colored a gold room for the crime at Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si, around 15:25 on the same day, at a gold room operated by the victim AD (n, 54 years old), Defendant A confirmed that he/she had no customer, notified him/her of the fact, and waiting for the nearby vehicles, and B, E, and E, after checking that there is no other person than the victim AD in his/her own face, she was able to leave the above gold room with her face, with her hand, and she was unable to comply with the victim AD, such as her laf, her laf, and her laf, and she was released to the place where he/she had a food display right, and the following 150 million won was displayed with the victim's right to display, and she did not own the 1500 million won in cash.

As a result, Defendant A and E took the victim AD's property jointly with B and E.

2. Determination

A. Summary of the assertion

Although Defendant A was accompanied with the knowledge that Defendant B and E would commit robbery, Defendant A did not directly commit robbery, and there is no fact that Defendant A conspired to commit robbery.

B. Relevant legal principles

The co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control over a criminal act based on the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. However, even if a person does not directly share and implement part of the elements of a crime, he/she may be held liable for the crime as a co-principal depending on the case. However, when comprehensively considering the status, role, control over the progress of the crime in the whole crime, etc., it should be deemed that a functional control exists through an essential contribution to the crime rather than a simple conspiracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2994, Jun. 23, 2009).

C. Determination

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, Defendant A and E, before committing the robbery, injury and special robbery of this case, is found to have examined the inside of the damaged area from the AS outside of the AS with B and E, and the inside of the surrounding areas, including AT, is found to have been examined.

However, considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is difficult to deem that the above facts of recognition alone led to the extent that functional control was recognized by Defendant A’s inherent contribution to the crime of robbery, bodily injury, and special robbery of this case. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Defendant A consistently stated to the effect that, at the time of committing robbery from an investigative agency to this court, “B, there was a vehicle parked in approximately 10 minutes away from the scene of the crime,” and Defendant A’s statement is consistent with the Defendant A’s statement to the effect that, at the time of committing robbery, the place where the robbery was parked at the time of committing robbery (Article 28, 29 of the Protocol on Examination of Witnesses, Nov. 3, 2017, of the trial record), the specific location of the vehicle parked at the time of committing robbery (Article 28, 29 of the Protocol on Examination of Witnesses, as of November 3, 2017, of the trial record). This is consistent with the Defendant’s statement.

② Defendant A and E did not drive the said vehicle in the course of escape after preparing and committing the instant robbery, injury and special robbery (section 17 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness E in the Litigation Records), and Defendant B and E did not possess a cell phone device at the time of the said crime (Article 26, 27 of the Protocol of Examination of Witness B, Nov. 3, 2017), and Defendant B and E could not be contacted or contacted with the witness B in the trial record.

③ Although B and E made a statement to the effect that “the money and valuables taken place in the prosecutor’s investigation were offered in advance to be disposed of by Defendant A” (Article 1, 301, 340 of the evidence record of 2017Dahap174). However, this court reversed the statement to the effect that “The money and valuables taken in the prosecutor’s investigation were not copied in advance in relation to the disposal of stolen goods,” and that “B was ordered to dispose of stolen goods to Party A after taking a reply from Party A in the public trial record (section 6 of the protocol of witness examination of witness E during the public trial record, page 2 of the protocol of witness examination of witness B as of November 3, 2017).

④ In this Court, B stated in the purport that “A” is accompanied by this Court that “A cannot be separated from the father of “B” and “B”, and that, in smuggling and Kimcheon, three persons were present at the same time in coloring each subject of the crime, and that the final choice of the subject of the crime is “B” (as of November 3, 2017, the protocol of examination of witness B, as of November 3, 2017, was 10,14 pages).

(5) During the police investigation, C stated to the effect that she was her friend with E that she had been engaged in robbery with E, but at the time, she did not have any opinion on the role of A at the time (2017 Gohap 174 case record No. 37).

3. Conclusion

Thus, since this part of the facts charged against Defendant A constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, each of the above facts charged shall be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the above facts charged includes the facts charged of robbery, injury, aiding and abetting, and special robbery with Defendant A, and even if each of the above aiding and abetting crimes is acknowledged without the modification of the indictment, it is not likely to actually disadvantage Defendant A’s exercise of his/her right to defense. Thus, as long as Defendant A is found guilty of each of the crimes of robbery, injury, aiding and abetting,

The presiding judge, judge and chief offender;

Judges Kim Gin-soo

Judges flooded Jins

1) The prosecutor sought from Defendant D the confiscation of Switzerland (M) that was seized in accordance with C’s tension No. 886 in 2017, but the above Switzerland was recorded on the record.

WT is obvious that it is Defendant B’s ownership, and thus, it is confiscated from Defendant B. The prosecutor shall, with respect to Defendant B, conduct its own pressure in 2017.

Each of the above articles sought for confiscation of 50,000 won (No. 2), 10,000 won (No. 3), and 1,000 won (No. 4), which was seized under 1909, but each of the above articles

Goods shall not be confiscated because they are owned by the bereaved family members and do not constitute confiscation.

2) With respect to Defendant C, KRW 40 (No. 15), USD 2, and KRW 3 (No. 16), which were seized under the pressure or 909 of the Changwon District Prosecutors’ Office in 2017, as to Defendant C;

1,000 United Nations (Evidence No. 17) sought confiscation of each of the above goods, but each of the above goods is owned by the bereaved family members and is not subject to confiscation.

shall not be confiscated.

3) The prosecutor also sought from Defendant D the confiscation of the number plates (N) confiscated by pressure 886 in 2017. However, the above goods are owned by the victim.

No confiscation shall be made because it is not the object of confiscation.

4) The facts charged refers to the Defendant B’s phone call to the Defendant C that “it is necessary for the Defendant to keep the body from damaging water.”

Although the defendant B, the defendant C, and the defendant D were described in the judgment, all of them were "Chicker D." at the time of "B", and they continued the phone.

Of the facts charged, there is only a statement to the effect that it was not explained about the use of the stones, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The part of the ‘necessary' shall be deleted in order to ensure that the body does not destroy water.

5) However, the scope of recommendations for each of the crimes listed in the sentencing guidelines is as follows, so that the punishment against Defendant B is determined:

reference.

Basic crime: Robbery

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (Murder combined with Serious Crimes)

[Special Contributors] Aggravations: In the case of abduction and inducement for planned murder crimes and for the purpose of criticism (type 4)

[Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations] Special Priority Area, Imprisonment with prison labor for 25 to 50 years or more,

○ Minority Crimes: Injury by robbery

[Determination of Types] In the event of injury, the type 2 (Special Robbery)

[Special Exemplarys] Reductions: Insignificant bodily injury or negligence, and Non-influor of Punishment

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Special Mitigation (one year to six years)

○ Concurrent Crimes: Special robbery

[Determination of Type] General Criteria> Type 2 (Special Robbery)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Area (3-6 years)

6) However, the scope of recommendations for each of the crimes listed in the sentencing guidelines is as follows, and thus, the punishment against Defendant C is determined in accordance with the sentencing guidelines:

reference.

○ Basic crime: Robbery

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (Murder combined with Serious Crimes)

[Special Contributors] Aggravations: In cases of kidnapping and inducing for a purpose of criticism (type 4)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 25-50 years to 50 years of imprisonment, or higher

○ Minor Offenses 1: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement)

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for Arrest and Confinement

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : Where the degree of arrest and detention is serious.

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation ( August to June)

○ Minority 2 thief

【Determination of Punishment】 thieth category 2(General thieth) for General Property

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a crime is systematically shared (except for habitual offenders).

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation (10-2 years from October)

7) However, the scope of recommendations for each of the crimes listed in the sentencing guidelines is as follows, so that the punishment against Defendant D is determined:

reference.

Basic crime: Robbery

[Determination of Punishment] Type 4 (Murder combined with Serious Crimes)

[Special Contributors] Aggravations: In cases of kidnapping and inducing for a purpose of criticism (type 4)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 25-50 years to 50 years of imprisonment, or more

○ Minor Offenses 1: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement)

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for Arrest and Confinement

[Special Aggravationd ] Aggravationd : Where the degree of arrest and detention is serious.

【Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations】 Aggravation ( August to June)

○ Minority 2 thief

【Determination of Punishment】 thieth category 2(General thieth) for General Property

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where a crime is systematically shared (except for habitual offenders).

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation (10-2 years from October)