2013No1887 (a) homicide

(b) Violation of the Narcotics Control Act;

C. Attempted Fraud

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Exercising a falsified document;

(f) Violation of the Resident Registration Act;

(g) Attempted aiding and abetting fraud;

(h) Teachers violating the Insurance Business Act;

1. (a)(c)(d)(e) A;

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

3.(a)(c) C

4.g. H. D

Defendant A, B, and Prosecutor

Park Ma-man (Court) and Lee Jae-hoon (Court)

Law Firm F (for Defendant A)

Attorney G

Attorney E (for the defendant A)

Law Firm H (Defendant B and C)

Attorney I, CX, CY

J Law Firm (Defendant D)

Attorney K, CZ

Suwon District Court Decision 2012 Gohap352 decided May 22, 2013

oly 10, 2013

[Defendant A] Of the guilty and acquitted portion of the lower judgment, the part as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010 shall be reversed. Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for 20 years.

Of the acquitted portion of the judgment below, the prosecutor's appeal against the victim Samsung Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Undividended Partnership Accident Insurance Co., Ltd., Undividend New Cargo Insurance Co., Ltd.), and LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd. is dismissed, each attempted fraud against the LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., on March 30, 2010, on September 2, 2010, on September 28, 2010, on March 28, 2011, on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence).

[Defendant B] Of the guilty and acquitted portion of the lower judgment, each of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010, and attempted fraud against the victim Samsung Bio-resources Co., Ltd. shall be reversed. Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two months.

Of the acquitted portion of the lower judgment, the Defendant Samsung Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (Undividended Partnership Accident Insurance Co., Ltd., Non-Distribution New Cargo Insurance Co., Ltd., and LIG Damage Insurance Co., Ltd., each attempted fraud on March 30, 2010; each violation of the Narcotics Control Act, etc. Act (fence) on September 2, 2010; December 2, 2010; and March 28, 2011; the violation of the Resident Registration Act; the violation of the Private Document Act; the violation of the Private Document Act; the use of the private document; and the prosecutor’s appeal on the exercise of the above investigation document is dismissed.The first charge of the instant violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) on February 8, 2010; February 9, 2010; and each violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (fence) on February 10, 2010>

[Defendant C]

Of the lower judgment, each part of the lower judgment on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) shall be reversed on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010.

Defendant C shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, with respect to Defendant C, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Of the acquittal portion of the lower judgment, the Prosecutor’s appeal as to murder, the victim Samsung Bio-resources Co., Ltd., Samsung Fire and Marine Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyundai Marine Fire and Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., and LIG damage insurance Co., Ltd. is dismissed, each of the attempted fraud, and the prosecutor’s appeal as to the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) on December 2, 2010 and March 28, 201, respectively. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the primary and ancillary charges on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) due to the use of psychotropic substances are acquitted, respectively.

[Defendant D] Prosecutor's appeal against Defendant D is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

A) The victim was found guilty of the crime of murder, even though he did not murder by opening a lid which was voluntarily exempted from water and intentionally so as to commit suicide, which was caused by the typhan poisoning, or that he did not shut down a lid which was caused by the bomb in the bomb in the state of smoking for the purpose of committing suicide by himself, and that he was killed by the bomb due to the bomb in the bomb in the state of smoking in order to commit suicide, and that he did not murder by opening a lid which was caused by the bomb in the state of smoking, and thus, he was guilty of the crime of murder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

B) The judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the charges of attempted insurance fraud on the part of Samsung Bio-resources Co., Ltd. and Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance (Non-Distribution Lease Insurance) even though the defendant submitted a claim for insurance money to obtain a refund of the cancellation refund or the amount of insurance premium erroneously paid after the death of the victim and did not intend to obtain the insurance money, is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts that affected

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment sentenced by the court below (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

(1) misunderstanding of facts

Although Defendant B submitted a claim for insurance money to receive the cancellation refund, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the charge of attempted insurance fraud for the victim's modern marine fire insurance (undividendd risk insurance) and erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence sentenced by the court below (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. The prosecutor is the prosecutor.

1) Defendants B and C’s murder

A) Defendant B

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant A searched off several occasions with Defendant B while searching for exemption from the Internet, that Defendant B’s cell phone deleted ethyl ethyl melts on his own cell phone, that Defendant B changed the beneficiary and the contractor of the insurance that the victim subscribed before the victim’s death to Defendant B, and that in the process, Defendant B took the victim’s behavior; Defendant B also took the same effect when Defendant A instructed Defendant C to make a false statement at an investigation agency on the process of purchasing exemption from the water; Defendant B made several calls with Defendant A on several occasions on the date of the victim’s death; and Defendant A made several calls with Defendant B and 30 minutes more than five minutes more than the victim’s death immediately after the victim confirmed the victim’s death, the judgment of not guilty was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment of the court below.

B) In light of the circumstances such as the purchase of exemption two days prior to the death of the victim and the purchase of the victim, the purchase made the Defendant A and immediately after the purchase, the delivery of exemption prior to the death of the victim to the Defendant A, and the replacement of the Defendant B with the phone at the insurance company to find the victim, etc., Defendant C could have recognized the fact of killing the victim in collusion with the Defendant A and B, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this error by misunderstanding the fact that it had affected the conclusion

2) In light of the fact that the non-guilty part (defendant A, B, C) Defendant A, B, and C conspired to murder the victim, and Defendant B attempted to change the beneficiary of some insurance policies following the death of the victim, among the attempted fraud of the victim Samsung Bio-resources (defendant B, C) and attempted fraud of Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of this part of the charges, despite being guilty, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) The judgment of the court below which acquitted the person not guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was not for the purpose of treatment even if the person possessed an exemption by the doctor's prescription of the violation of the Narcotics Control Act (the defendant A, B, and C).

4) Violation of the Resident Registration Act (Defendant B), infringement of private documents, and infringement of private documents (Defendant A, B)

Although the court below found the victim's personal information to be modified at will by using the victim's resident registration number without the victim's consent, and it can be recognized that the victim's application for change of contractual relationship with the victim's name is forged, and sent him/her with the forgery, the court below acquitted the defendant of this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion.

5) The judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant A of attempted fraud, despite being aware of the victim’s injury after the victim’s death when Defendant A subscribed to the victim’s insurance, and of the victim’s negligence after the victim’s death, he solicited Defendant A, B, etc. to claim Samsung Bio-resources insurance. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

6) Unreasonable sentencing (Defendant A and B)

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to Defendant A and B is too unhued and unfair.

2. Scope of adjudication;

The prosecutor appealed the entire portion of the judgment of the court below not guilty. However, there is no reason to determine ex officio as to ① the victim Samsung Fire Insurance and LIG damage insurance against Defendant A, B, and C, ② the violation of the Insurance Business Act against Defendant D, and there is no reason to determine ex officio. Thus, it is not separately determined as to this part.

3. Ex officio determination

For the first time in the trial, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. to the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged as follows, among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant A, B, and C, on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010. The prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. to the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

【State Facts charged】

Defendant A, B, and C, according to their respective roles around February 2010 in order to kill the victim, planned to purchase exemption from the number containing psychotropic drugs by the stroke method and to use it for the victim:

1) At around 14:10 on February 8, 2010, Defendant A conspired with Defendant A to purchase psychotropic drugs at his pharmacy on the same day after obtaining a prescription of 1.5 dice 1,20 days and 30 dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dice dump dume d. 15 d.

【Preliminary Facts】

Defendant A, B, and C conspired to purchase exemption from psychotropic drugs in accordance with their respective roles on February 15, 2010 and use them for the victim. Defendant B and C purchased radioactive drugs from Defendant B and C on February 8, 2010, under the direction of Defendant A, with a prescription of 15 piculty 10, the following day after purchasing them from a pharmacy, after purchasing from the pharmacy at around 15:30 on September 15, 201, at around 0:30, the following day: Defendant A purchased radioactive drugs from the Defendant’s dwelling at the Defendant’s dwelling at the Defendant’s 20th day after purchasing radioactive drugs from the Defendant B and C on February 15:30, 2010, after purchasing radioactive drugs from the Defendant B and C on February 15, 2010. Defendant B and C purchased radioactive drugs from the Plaintiff’s pharmacy at the 5th day of luxum 30, 2010.

4. Determination on the grounds for appeal

(a) Basic facts;

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the following facts can be acknowledged.

1) The relationship between Defendant A, B, C and the victim

A) Defendant A, B, and C

① On October 10, 1969, Defendant A married with BT, and made ASEAN and Defendant B. Since BT could not properly engage in her occupation due to tuberculosis, Defendant A maintained her livelihood by leasing and selling construction materials, such as building business, board, etc. From around 1974. BT died on February 11, 198, and she died on the 1991 senior executive staff. Since then, Defendant A and her re-born with C Q Qa, which became aware of her business around October 23, 1992, but was divorced on July 9, 1996.

② around 193, Defendant A invested in the building business and the leasing and selling business of construction materials as seen above, and newly constructed Q buildings with the size of 1st and 5th above ground level on the P of Ansan-si P. In addition, Defendant A resided in the five floors of the above building and continued to operate the building lease business until 2005.

③ As seen above, Defendant A had many males who had engaged in a building business and carried out business as the other party. While engaging in a building leasing business of Q buildings, Defendant A dealt with disputes with lessees, and Defendant A was assessed as a snick and strong character.

④ On June 11, 2002, Defendant B married with CR and resided in Q building five floors, and was divorced on November 18, 2003. around that time, Defendant C was urged from around 2004 to five floors in Q building from around 18, 2004, and lived in Incheon on May 2008, and filed a marriage report on January 11, 201.

B) Relationship with the victim

(1) The victim was born in 1967 to grow up at a child care facility from the age of four to the middle school.

Since the retirement, the punishment was imposed on several occasions as a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

② Around 202, the victim was making a campaign at a friendship BB and a golf driving range, but only after Defendant A became aware of the victim’s horses, it led to a living together in the fifth floor area of Q building and a smoke-resistant relationship. On February 26, 2004, Defendant A continued to have a smoke-resistant relationship after the victim was adopted by both parties, and Defendant B and C resided in the above residential area. The victim resided in Q building, while the victim was living in Q building, the victim managed the building, and the lessee was the other party to the building, and the victim was operating an underground street room operated by Defendant B.

④ On December 6, 2004, Defendant A promised to divide all the property to Defendant B and the victim equally and divide one half of the same amount when the life of Defendant A was deceased or unable to manage the property. In the event that the victim renounces his/her inheritance due to his/her liability relationship, Defendant B prepared a will stating that he/she shall keep the shares of the victim, but grants cash or real estate whenever the victim wishes.

2) The nature of the victim

① On August 2, 2004, the victim was punished by a fine of KRW 1.5 million due to a violation of the Act on the Prevention of Prostitution and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc., on January 7, 2005, when he/she inflicted an injury on AW as a result of a trial cost due to the issue of BL user's business AW and water supply charge on August 10, 2004.

② On February 28, 2008, the victim was found to have assaulted a substitute driver on the part of the victim and was subject to a disposition that is not entitled to prosecution by agreement.

피해자는 2009. 5. 25. BG신경정신과의원에서 '알코올 중독, 반사회적 성격장애'로 진단을 받았다. 당시 상담일지에는 '피해자는 매일 같이 소주 3병 정도의 술을 마신다, 주변 사람들과 다투게 되는 것은 자신이 잘못한 것이 아니다. 모두 주변 사람들 때문에 그렇게 된 것이다, 맘에 들지 않는 사람이 있으면 씨를 말려버리고 싶다'고 말한 것으로 기재되어 있다. 의사 BS은 당시 피해자의 말투 및 행동이 상당히 험악하였고, 함께 온 피고인 A가 가엾어 보일 정도로 상당히 힘들어 하는 모습이었으며, 피고인 A에게 따로 '피해자는 치료할 수 없는 사람이다, 절대 바뀌지 않는 사람이다'고 말을 해 주었고, 피해자가 자살하고 싶다고 말을 하거나 그런 행동을 보이지 않았으며, 병원을 찾아오게 된 것도 피고인 A가 힘들어서 피해자를 데리고 왔다고 진술하였다.4)

④ On July 26, 2009, the injured party written a letter to Defendant A stating "I swear that I will not want to engage in the arrangement of a family register, and I will not permit I to take any part in the drinking and drinking once again, and will not permit I to take part in the drinking and drinking once. I do not permit you to take part in the drinking and drinking once."

⑤ In addition, on November 25, 2009, the victim made a letter to Defendant A, stating, “I swear that I will not enter the drinking on November 25, 2009 to the date on which I will see that I will come to a mature baby without going to do so and without going to do so. I will not go to this time. I will not raise an objection even if you send it to a mental hospital or alcohol addiction hospital.”

(6) On December 22, 2009, the aggrieved person was assaulted and received in the emergency room of the CMF hospital on December 22, 2009.

7) The victim had a large amount of drinking alcohol, and had a large amount of fighting with other persons upon drinking alcohol, thus promising Defendant A not to drink alcohol, and repeated drinking. Defendant C also told Defendant C that he was unable to comply with the commitment with Defendant A by walking phone.

④ Defendant A’s speech CN stated that there was an entry that the victim was found at the CN’s house by drinking alcohol and drinking the alcohol before the towing.5)

3) Facts around the time of the victim’s death

A) Insurance relationship

① On January 19, 2010, the victim subscribed to the non-dividendd General Insurance (Drivers Insurance) for LIG Loss Insurance.

② On January 21, 2010, the victim purchased Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., and both the contractor and the beneficiary, as Defendant A, upon the death of the main contract, provided that the victim, the insured, without any special agreement on disease, injury, etc., can receive insurance proceeds (the death insurance amount is KRW 230 million) and the early withdrawal of the reserve. 6)

③ On January 28, 2010, the victim subscribed to the East Life Insurance, and both the contractor and the beneficiary are Defendant A, and the victim was entitled to receive the insurance proceeds without any special agreement on general illness, injury, etc. upon the death of the principal contract (the death insurance proceeds are KRW 200 million), and the special agreement on early withdrawal of the reserve and conversion of the pension was possible. The insurance, including the above 43 insurance, up to the time the victim died was 12 cases, and the total amount of the insurance proceeds due to the death was 620 million won.

B) Defendant A’s criminal records

(1) Purchasing exemptions;

① On January 5, 2010, Defendant A purchased a pre-fluoric acid ethyl (3) with the pre-fluoric acid treatment at a V hospital located in the Gu U, under the pre-fluoric acid treatment.

② On February 8, 2010, Defendant A complained of water surface disorders in WX-gu W, X-gu, and purchased 30 dices (20 dices) by prescribing 30 dices.

③ On February 9, 2010, Defendant A purchased at AA hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, 42 dices (21 dices).

④ On February 8, 2010, Defendant A purchased water immunity from Defendant C, located in Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-do. On February 8, 2010, Defendant C purchased a water surface guidance system by prescribing a water surface guidance system 15 years after purchasing the water surface guidance system to appeal a water surface disorder at the AE Assembly member located in Gangseo-gu, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, Gangwon-do, and then transferred it to Defendant A on February 9, 2010.

⑤ Defendant A and C did not have any prescription for exemption before they were prescribed as above.

(2) Internet search and exemption inquiries

① As a result of digital evidence analysis with respect to the computers installed at the Defendant A’s house (which are mainly used by the Defendant A) from February 8, 2010 to October 38, 201, the words such as “land purchase”, “self-harmacide”, “Japanese drug surface”, “Japanese drug surface title”, “Class I drug surface name”, and “Irrrrrrrrrrrrroids from around 16:44 to 17:20 of the same day were searched. In addition, from around 03:02 to around 03:21, 2010 to from around 16:44 on February 9, 2010, the words such as “strophice”, “stroke ingredients”, “strokes,” and “strokes ethyl ingredients” were searched.

② The above search of the word was conducted in the process of playing a high-saw game by the said computer user.

③ On February 8, 2010, from around 16:55 to 17:01 on the same day, Defendant A asked questions to the effect that “I would be able to kill a person to a certain extent by making phone calls to BH pharmacies, X department members, and Y pharmacy at the home,” and Defendant A asked to answer to the question that “I would be able to die if I would be able to recover excessively even if there are different persons.”

(3) The criminal records before and after the victim's death

① A computer installed at Defendant A’s house was connected to a Gosaw Game at around 00:36 and around 01:04 on February 10, 2010. On February 10, 2010, the contents taken from CCTV installed outside the house gate of Defendant A are as follows.

02:32:18경 피고인 A가 집에서 가방을 들고 나와 옥상에 올라갔다 내려온 후 엘리베이터를 타고 나감(자동도어락 잠금장치만 사용)02:52:23경 피고인 A가 가방 없이 빈손으로 집에 들어옴02:54:05경 피고인 A가 집에서 나와 엘리베이터를 타고 나감(자동 도어락 잠금장치만 사용)11:37:05경 피고인 A가 가방을 들고 집에 들어옴11:46:42경 피고인 A가 집에서 나와 엘리베이터를 타고 나감(열쇠로 시정장치 잠금)12:49:00경 피고인 A가 열쇠로 시정장치를 열고, 비밀번호를 입력하여 자동 도어락 잠금장치를 해제한후 집에 들어옴12:59:33경 피고인 A가 마스크를 쓴 채 연탄재 4개를 집 밖으로 내 놓음13:00:09경 피고인 A가 마스크를 쓴 채 연탄재 3개를 집 밖으로 내 놓음13:00:58경 피고인 A가 마스크를 쓴 채 연탄재 3개를 집 밖으로 내 놓음13:01:34경 피고인 A가 계단 밑에 있던 새 연탄 3개를 현관문 앞에 두고 옥상으로 올라감| 13:04:55경 피고인 A가 마스크를 벗은 채 옥상에서 내려와 현관문 앞에 두었던 새 연탄 3개를 가지고집으로 들어감14:16:55경 피고인 A가 엘리베이터 앞 종이박스에 들어 있던 번개탄을 가지고 집 안으로 들어감14:39:08경 피고인 D이 피고인 A의 집 방문, 3차례 초인종 누르고 휴대폰으로 전화함14:39:40경 피고인 D이 초인종을 한 번 누르고, 노크를 한 번 하고, 다시 초인종을 한 번 누른 후 휴대폰으로전화함- 14:41:42경 피고인 D이 전화를 끊고, 들고 있던 서류를 피고인 A의 현관문 옆 번개탄 박스 위에 올려놓고엘리베이터를 타고 내려감· 19:29:09경 피고인 A가 현관문을 열고 나와 119 구급대원을 기다림19:29:37경 119 구급대원 도착19:43:45경 경찰관 도착| 20:03:58경 피고인 B가 집으로 들어감• 20:13:22경 피고인 C이 집으로 들어감20:40:31경 사망한 피해자의 시신을 엘리베이터로 아래로 이동함• 20:54:56경 피고인 A, B, C이 모두 집에서 나감(자동 도어락 잠금장치만 사용)

On February 10, 2010, Defendant A discovered the death of the victim at around 18:48:46 on the same day, and thereafter, at around 18:57:04, Defendant B calls to Defendant B for 20 seconds. At around 18:57:41, Defendant B calls to Defendant B for 20 seconds. At around 19:03:09, Defendant C calls to Defendant C for 52 seconds. At around 19:05:45, Defendant B calls to receive 50 seconds, and around 19:05:103, Defendant B calls to receive 470 seconds, and around 19:103:03, Defendant B calls to report at around 119:12:19.

4) The state and the private person at the time of discovery of the victim

① At the time of arrival of an emergency medical service worker at the scene around 19:27 on February 10, 2010, the victim was forced to face the victim’s face. At the time of the emergency medical service worker’s arrival at the scene of the incident, the victim was faced with the victim’s face in order to confirm the patient’s response and to attach a heart satise. After that, the victim was satisfying. In addition, the 119 emergency medical service workers were satisfy in the house when called at the site, and the AP was satisfy in the police room, and the victim was satisfyed with a satisfying lid, and the victim’s body was found to have been satisfyed at the time of being satisfy, and the victim’s body was satched at the time of being satisfy, and the body was satched at the time of being satisfy.

③ According to the result of autopsy on the victim conducted on February 12, 2010 at the National Institute of Scientific Investigation, the victim’s private person was killed due to addiction to an oxygen (i.e., ambrithic ethyl, stroke-type) in excess of volume. At the time of autopsy, the ambling rate was less than 0.010%, and the blood ambane-Hogle was less than 48% (in accordance with the literature, the blood ambrithic xine concentration was 60%, at least 40%, at 0%, at 0%, at 0%, at 0%, at the back of the body, and 0% of the blood ambrithic ethyl, ambrithic ethyl, and ambrithic ethyl, and 9% of the blood ambrithic x, at 20%, respectively).

(4) The quantity and blood concentration of the carbon oxide up to death are individual but any more important concentration is the concentration of the Hexane-Hogles in the blood, with the concentration of the carbon oxide in the air, and at the time exposed. In other words, as the concentration in the air of the Uxane is higher, and the exposed time is longer long, the concentration of the Uxane-Hogles in the blood is proportional to the exposed time, and there is a serious impact on the human body.1)

5) Defendant A’s residential status

The 5th floor of Q building in which Defendant A and the victim reside is about 199.06 square meters (60 square meters). The 5th floor of the Q building used by Defendant A consists of the inside room, the room of Defendant B, the victim’s room, the living room, the kitchen, the kitchen, the toilet, and the laundry room, and there is a 9 way to enter the living room. The inside room has three smokes.

B. Determination as to Defendant A’s assertion on murder

1) As to the possibility that the victim opened a lid from water exemption in order to commit suicide

A) Defendant A’s assertion that Defendant A, who was exempted from water to kill with the victim, was asserting that the victim, who was released from the Republic of Korea by Defendant A, alone, did so by opening a lid so as to make himself/herself capable of drinking water and diving.

B) Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is difficult to deem that the victim could commit suicide by opening a lid with a lid with a flid with a drinking exemption.

(1) 법의학자 AT의 진술 ① 보통 졸피뎀을 복용한 후 30분 이내에 잠에 빠지고 아무리 불면증이 심한 사람이라도 1~2시간은 푹 잔다. 통상 한 알을 먹어도 쉽게 잠에 빠진다.

② Since the victim’s blood alcohol exemption concentration is higher than that of ordinary medical treatment, it is entirely impossible to establish ice dancing in such circumstances, since the victim’s blood transfusion concentration is higher than that of ordinary medical treatment, and the degree of toxicity may not occur even though it is not fatal.

③ There may be 4 to 5 hours after the death of a corpse. A photograph taken at the time of the death of a corpse at around 21:05 refers to the fact that a new corpse was formed in the victim’s, etc., and a part of the dispatch team remains, and that a new team was changed within 4 to 5 hours after the death. This means that a body was turned back within 4 to 5 hours after the death of a corpse, etc. In other words, it means that a new team was formed in the state where a corpse was turned back within 4 to 5 hours after the death of a corpse.

(2) Time impossibility

① On February 10, 2010, Defendant A was gathered at around 02:52, and at the time, Defendant A stated that the victim was broken. In addition, at around 12:49, Defendant A stated that the victim was fluord with her hand when she went to the house. However, according to the above AT’s statement, it is impossible to fluorize ice in such circumstances because the victim’s blood exemption concentration is the degree of toxicity.

② At around 12:49, it may be assumed that the victim had not yet been effective of the exemption. However, according to the statements of the above AT, the time for taking the exemption has not yet passed by about 30 minutes. In other words, Defendant A opened a lid of the victim’s smoking and the victim’s smoking after taking the house at around 11:46. In other words, Defendant A opened a lid of the total carbon gas after taking the house at around 11:46. However, Defendant A’s ventilation at around 12:49, and produced the exhaust gas of the house, so the time during which the victim could inhale the smoke gas was not more than 30 minutes, and (a) the victim might not have taken a considerable time to spread the gas to the entire house of 60 square meters (around 10 minutes, the victim might not have taken advantage of the victim’s death at all after breading the hand and smoking.)

(3) The absence of motive for suicide

Defendant A asserts that there was a motive or support for suicide, such as: (a) the victim complained of bullying by finding the victim in BIS; and (b) the victim took the phone call, counseling, etc.; but in full view of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that there was a motive for the victim to commit suicide.

① Around 4:00 on May 2009, the victim found the victim under the influence of alcohol in the BIsung during the Ansan-si, and said that it is difficult for people of BJ to ignore her own, and that her mother would be well aware of her mind. On that day, Defendant A is provoking of an accident once a month without putting the victim into her body and her body with her body. As such, Defendant A also she would die too far. The victim did not live with her body, and then she considered how she died, and she considered and calculated her body. However, on May 25, 2009, the victim appeared to have been unable to commit suicide rather than her suicide because she took care of her body or she expressed her body rather than she expressed her body.

② On November 24, 2009, there was a consultation by asking a phone via the Seoul Life Call. However, the content of the consultation is that “I want to die after being accused of the assault to the 15-year old-old-old-year-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-old-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-year-old-her-year-old-her-year-old-her-her-her-year-old-her-her-her-year-old-her-year-old-her-year-old-old-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her-her

③ According to the Defendant’s assertion, the victim’s motive for suicide was the relationship with the Defendant A, the victim’s loss and accident, etc., and the victim was prepared to commit suicide with the Defendant. However, the victim did not seem to have any reason to attempt the mixed suicide with the Defendant A, and it is difficult to understand that the victim did not keep the Defendant A at any time. Furthermore, even though the Defendant was exempted from the charge and was placed in the place of the death, it is difficult to understand that the victim did not release the Defendant A from the charge of committing suicide, and it was difficult to understand that the victim did not have prevented the victim from drinking the exemption after being exempted from the charge of committing suicide.

(2) Defendant A stated that, after the death of the victim, the Defendant A died of the victim’s accident at the police station from November 2012 to the reversal of the statement, and that the victim did not have any reason to commit suicide.

⑤ On January 19, 2010, the victim called the victim in order to verify whether he/she consented to the insurance policy without paying dividends for the LIG damage insurance (Driver insurance). At the time of the victim's purchase of the insurance policy, the victim called the victim in order to verify whether he/she has consented to the insurance policy on a passive basis, and the victim was actively aware of whether or not he/she made a recording, whether or not he/she provided a recording material, whether or not he/she provided a recording material, whether or not he/she provided a monthly insurance premium, designation of a beneficiary, whether or not he/she provided an insurance policy, and whether or not he/she expressed his/her intent, and asked whether or her health is any defect.”

④ On January 21, 2010, Defendant A stated that the victim subscribed to Samsung Life Insurance (Monthly Contribution 579,600 won) on January 28, 2010, and the pension insurance that Defendant B paid in KRW 446,000 per month (Monthly Contribution 446,000) under the victim’s name, and it is difficult to view that the victim’s attitude was in mind of suicide or that the victim’s attitude was in mind of living. 7 years from the mid-1980s, the victim was aware of the victim’s 17th anniversary of 2009 or 2010, and the victim did not know about the fact that the victim was able to receive criminal punishment for 10,000,000 won, and that the victim did not know about 10,000 won and 10,0000 won, but did not know about 10,0000 won and 10,000 won.

8) Defendant A asserted that the victim had proposed the death proposal before the victim died and agreed to it after five days. However, in light of the circumstances seen earlier, the victim had concerns over rejection at the home of Defendant A due to his own loss, and the victim seems to have had considerable help and brush with respect to Defendant A. However, there seems to be no reason to suggest that the victim would be accompanied by Defendant A.

9. The injured party did not have been given medical treatment at a hospital due to depression, etc. or prescribed with the medicine of depression. Rather, the injured party was given medical treatment as well as Defendant A, as seen earlier, prescribed that the injured party was given a prefection of prefectionic acid.

2) As to the possibility that the victim does not shut down a lid which is slided down by a slid lid due to the slid that the victim attempted to commit suicide

(A) The defense counsel asserts that there was a possibility that the victim would have died at 13:0 o'clock to 14:0 o'clocks without shutting lids from the victim's water exemption and without shutting lids from the smoke.

B) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, it is difficult to view that the victim could have died due to the circumstances asserted by the defense counsel.

① When Defendant A entered the house at around 12:49, Defendant A stated that the victim she was fringed while her hand, and her hand was fringed. However, as the defense counsel’s assertion, if Defendant A had already been drinking water at 9:3 hours after drinking water, Defendant A had already passed since the toxicity of water exemption spreads to her body, as well as that at around 12:49, it is difficult to understand that Defendant A was fringed while her handing his hand in such circumstances.

② Defendant A entered a house at around 11:37 and stayed for about 9 minutes. From 9:10 p.m. to 10 p.m., Defendant A appears to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been shot gas smelled sufficiently after the lapse of 1:40 to 2:40 p.m. from 9:10 p.m., Defendant A stated that he was able to have been able to have been shot gas smelled at the time (at the time, he did not take any measure). Defendant A was able to have been shot gas smelled (at the time, he did not take any measure) and she was able to have been shotd. The same was

3) The circumstances where Defendant A kills the victim

A) Defendant A’s written suspicion

(1) When the process of finding the death of the victim was found to have entered the house at around 11:37, and at around 12:49, Defendant A had discovered the death of the victim at around 18:48, and made a phone call to Defendant B. It is difficult to understand that the victim’s private person was addicted to carbon, and that Defendant A had discovered the victim’s death at around 18:48, even if he was inside the house with the victim for long time. In this regard, Defendant A discovered the fact that the victim’s death was opened at around 12:49 at around 12:49, and opened a lid with the victim, and then opened the victim’s “if he was snick, she will do so, she will do so.” However, the victim was able to see his hand and fright so that she can sat down and sat down the victim.

C. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, Defendant A’s appeal against the above-mentioned defense is difficult to believe.

(1) 피고인 A의 변소는 피해자가 12:49경에 살아 있었고, 12:49경 이전까지 노출된 일산화탄소에 의하여 사망하였음을 전제로 하고 있다. 앞서 본 AT의 진술에 의하면 졸피뎀은 한 알만 먹어도 쉽게 잠에 빠져들고 복용 후 30분 이내에 잠에 빠지고 1~2 시간은 푹 자게 되므로 피해자의 혈중 수면제 농도와 같이 독성이 나타날 정도의 상황에서 웅얼거리는 것은 불가능하다는 것이다. 즉 피해자가 수면제를 먹은 지 30분이 아직 경과되지 않았다면 손을 들고 웅얼거릴 수는 있었을 것이나, 피해자가 일산화탄소에 노출된 시간 또한 30분 정도밖에 되지 않는다는 것이 된다. 반대로 12:49경까지 흡입한 일산화탄소가 거의 치사량에 이르러 빈사상태에 있었다고 가정하면 이미 수면제를 먹은 때로부터 충분한 시간이 흘러 수면제의 독성이 피해자의 몸에 퍼졌을 것이고 그런 상태에서 손을 흔들고 웅얼거리는 것은 불가능해 보인다. 즉 피해자가 12:49 경이미 사망하였거나 혹은 그 이후에도 지속적으로 일산화탄소에 노출되었다고 봄이 상당하다.

② Defendant D visited Defendant D’s house at around 14:39, and visited Defendant A’s house to take the first class of figures and made calls, but Defendant A did not open a door.

③ AP, at the court below’s first finding the victim at the court below’s 119 first time, made a statement that the face was cut down. If Defendant A had been aware of a sudden death of the victim and had been discovered and play, the victim’s body should first be cut back and the face and chest should have been confirmed, but it would be difficult to obtain a 30 minutes or more from the time the victim was found at the time of the first finding, and the report was made at 119. As to this, Defendant A asserted that the remaining Defendant B made a report on 30 minutes or more after phoneing the victim to her face, and that there was no yellow dust. However, Defendant A had been aware that the victim was already killed or was a behavior or conviction in a state where he had been anticipated to have died.

④ As a result of the verification of IP access time, at around 18:16, at around 18:16, Defendant A’s Nition A’s Internet Nition: (a) around 18:22, and around 18:23, the record was confirmed that Defendant C’s “BN” was sent to the Internet game. In other words, Defendant A had been working on the Internet game around 30 minutes prior to the confirmation of the victim’s death.

⑤ At the court below, AP stated that, when the victim arrived at the scene of the death of the victim, smelled gas smelled, lids in the living room lid was opened, and that there was no 'bane' who asked the defendant A at any time to check the status of the victim, and that there was her drinking as a day on a day, and that she was her drinking at the house, and that she was her drinking at that time.20) According to CCTV video photographs, the defendant A was waiting to wear her mother and locked, she was her mother and locked at the time of arrival of 119 emergency squad, and she was waiting outside the door.

⑥ 피고인 A는 119 구급대가 출동하였을 당시에 집안에 있었던 연기는 자신이 잠을 자고 일어난 후 안방 난로에 불을 피우기 위해서 번개탄을 사용하였기 때문이고, 거실 연탄난로의 뚜껑이 열려 있었던 것은 거실 난로의 불씨를 이용하여 번개탄에 불을 붙여 안방으로 옮긴 후 거실난로의 뚜껑을 닫지 않았기 때문이라고 주장하나, ㉠ CCTV영상 사진에 의하면 피고인 A가 번개탄을 들고 들어간 시각은 14:16경으로 피고인 A가 번개탄을 사용하였다고 주장하는 시각보다 2시간 이상 이전인 점, ㉡ 번개탄은 연탄불이 꺼졌을 경우 다시 불을 피우기 위하여 사용하는 것인데 나중에 불이 꺼질 것을 미리 예상하고 번개탄을 가져다 놓는다는 것은 경험칙상 납득하기 어려운 점, ㉢ 거실과 안방에 새 연탄이 준비되어 있기는 하나 새 번개탄은 비치되어 있지 않으므로 평소에 번개탄을 미리 집안에 가져다 두는 것으로 보기는 어려운 점, ㉣ 당시 출동한 AP, AQ는 연탄가스 냄새였다고 진술한 점 등의 사정에 비추어 위 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

(2) Defendant A’s entry and exit

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below are suspected to have been exposed to coal gas from that time at the time when Defendant A went to house at around 02:32.

① Defendant A went to the house at around 02:32 and entered the house immediately after entering the house at around 02:52. However, when entering the house at around 11:37, Defendant A opened the door and opened the door, and opened the door again, and opened the door again, and closed the door again. These actions are doubtful as to whether the smoke gas was spreading in the house and the Defendant was aware of it.

② At around 02:32, around 02:54, and around 20:54, Defendant A did not use only an automatic control device and lock up the key. However, at around 11:46, Defendant A’s act of locking the door by using not only an automatic control device but also a key. Such act is doubtful whether there was any intention to prevent other persons from entering the house more clearly.

For this reason, the defense counsel argued that the key was set up in excess to lock up and lock up the key, and that the key was not used and used on the day of the instant case. However, even if the use of the key was in an excessive phase, it is difficult to understand the above fact in light of the empirical rule that the use of the key was locked up to the heat 4 when the adult male and female family members locked in the house, it is difficult to understand the above fact that it is difficult for the defendant to take out the door up to the heat 4. When the door was opened at around 12:49, he was released first, and it was not used to confirm the locked door and use the key, but it was difficult to accept the above argument in light of the fact that the above act appears to have been committed even if the defendant got out of the door by intentionally using the key, which appears to have been removed by first using the key from the beginning, and it appears that the above act was done.

③ Defendant A used 10 smokes from 12:59 to 13:00, leaving the house to 13:00.

In regard to this, the defense counsel argues that the operation of a studio was caused by a lot of dust near the studio in the studio, but it is difficult to find out the reason why dust in the vicinity of the studio in the studio in the studio because he opened a window and operated a studio gas in the air at the house (the operation of a studio toward the studio in order to attract the studio air is difficult in light of the empirical rule). According to C’s on-site photographs and CCTV images, it cannot be seen that it was damaged in the studio in the studio or in the house located by the defendant A, and in light of the fact that the defendant A stated in the police when studio in the studio, it is difficult to accept the above argument.

④ Defendant A stated that he did so so so so even at around 02:32 on February 10, 2010, Defendant A, however, it is difficult to accept that he did not make so so so even if he had already purchased large amounts of tax exemption.

In this regard, the defense counsel argued that it was not potable since he did not collect water exemption to live with the victim. However, even according to the defendant's statement, even according to the defendant A's statement, there was a lack of water exemption to live together and thus, it is difficult to accept the above argument since it did not take any date to live together with the victim.

(3) On February 11, 2010, prior to the autopsy on Defendant C’s false statement, Defendant A instructed Defendant C to make a false statement that, upon receiving questioning from the investigative agency about the purchase of the exemption from the charge, Defendant C was not prescribed upon Defendant A’s request, and that Defendant C was able to take a prescription upon his own needs.

In this regard, the defense counsel asserted that Defendant A’s statement made by Defendant C was not reliable after the result of the autopsy, and that Defendant C’s statement made by the investigative agency is not reliable.

On February 11, 200 following the first day after the N.C. 1’s statement, Defendant C received contact with his mother to attend the police station on the following day, 1: (a) her mother was under investigation by the police station; (b) her mother was able to ask her mother whether he was subject to criminal exemption; (c) her mother was able to ask her her sat; and (d) her mother was able to ask her satch; and (d) her her satch was able to ask her satch; and (e) her her satch was able to ask her satch; and (e) her satch was 1’s satch at the funeral hall and her satch was 1’s satch at the police station; and (e) her satch was 20’s satch and her satch was 1’s satch.

B) As to whether Defendant A replaced B’s coal

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant A had taken at least once the 119 first responds from the time when Defendant A opened a house at around 02:32, to the time when the 119 first responders arrive.

① Defendant C made a statement that she would go at a ward shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot s

② On February 9, 2010, Defendant C had been in the house of Defendant A with Defendant B, and it is reasonable to view that Defendant C went to the Incheon House at around 19:00 after 18:39 to 18:44, Defendant C had been in the house of Incheon. 25) Defendant C had been in the house at the time. After that, Defendant C was in the house of 26:27, 12:59 from February 10, 2010 to 13:00, 100, 2000 tobacco tobacco tobacco emergency teams were in the house of 10:0 o.e.,, Defendant C’s return to the house to 19:0 o.e.,, 200 o., 10 o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o. o.

(3) From February 19, 2010 to February 19, 2010, there is no person who enters the house other than Defendant A and the victim, between 19:27 on the following day.

④ As seen earlier, if it is assumed that the victim got a smoke while drinking water, it is contradictory to the Defendant A’s assertion that he was fluoring and fluoring his hand around 12:49. If the victim assumed that he was fluoring without drinking water exemption, there is no reason to close the lid normally by the victim’s smoke lids.28) Moreover, even if the victim got a smoke in the mixed body, even if he was fluoring the smoke in the mixed body, there was a lid by the smoke lid, and it is inconsistent with the Defendant A’s statement that he was fluoring and fluoring his hand around 12:49.

④ Defendant C stated at the police that “the victim’s flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium and flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium and flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusiumsium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flusium flus

C) The motive for murder

(1) Conflicts between Defendant A and the victim

As seen earlier, in light of the personality and conduct of the victim, the victim seems to have been in the nature of violence since the maturity of the victim, and it seems that the victim had an internal relationship with the defendant A, and even after the adoption, such tendency has not changed and continuously caused the problems arising from drinking, female, and violence, and thereby, the conflict with the defendant A seems to have occurred. The defendant A continues such relationship for at least five years, and even if he/she had a victim go through the BGG spirit and clinic on May 25, 2009, he/she was unable to treat the victim, but he/she was unable to treat the victim. It seems that the victim continued to cause any problem arising from drinking and violent violence, and this seems to have caused the defendant A to undergo medical treatment.

Meanwhile, according to the content of a letter of commitment made by the victim against the defendant A, the victim seems to have been aware of being dissolved by the defendant A. However, the defendant A seems to have not been able to mitigate the relationship with the victim due to violence of the victim and exposure to internal relations closely maintained.

(2) On January 21, 2010 and January 28, 2010, Defendant A may receive a total of KRW 430 million for the victim’s death insurance proceeds. The purchase of Samsung Life Insurance and Dongyang Life Insurance Co., Ltd., the death of the insured under the main contract without any special agreement on general illness, injury, etc., would have been an opportunity for the insured to kill the victim under the continued conflict.

In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the defrauded cannot be a motive for murder because the Defendant had a substantial financial power, but it is difficult to accept the above argument because the above large amount of death insurance can be a motive for murdering since the victim continued to have such conflict relationship with the victim.

4) Sub-committee

Therefore, in full view of the aforementioned indirect facts, the facts charged in this part of the facts charged that Defendant A murdered the victim by causing the victim to drink the amount of unexploitable revenue by a imprudent method, and opening a lid of the living room’s lids, thereby enabling the gas to be discharged, thereby causing the victim to die by means of addiction to the carbon, and the Defendant A and the defense counsel’s assertion disputing this point is without merit.

On the other hand, the defense counsel argues to the effect that Defendant A’s statement on the facts of the crime is unfair because it is not specific. However, in the murder crime, the date, time, place, and method of the crime are not elements of the crime, and if it is not possible to clearly recognize this in detail, it is not clear (see Supreme Court Decision 86Do1073, Aug. 19, 1986). The above argument is without merit. In addition, the defense counsel argues to the effect that if the exemption was dilution into red ginseng, it is obvious that the change in color and appearance is obvious that the victim cannot know it. However, the change in color and appearance of red ginseng can be diverse, depending on the quantity of red ginseng used, and the quantity of water exemption can vary depending on the victim’s condition, so it is difficult to accept the above argument to the effect that it can cause a change in the victim’s condition. Thus, it is difficult to accept the above argument that Defendant A’s attempted fraud can be exempted.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court of first instance by legitimately adopting and investigating evidence, i.e., ① fraud of insurance money appears to have been one of the motive for murder of Defendant A; ② Article 30 of the Clause of Samsung Life Insurance stipulates that it is premised upon the beneficiary or contractor's claim for insurance money, refund money, and insurance premium exemption; ③ it seems that the victim Samsung Life Insurance was treated as an accident claim, 31) the victim's receipt of insurance money; ③ it appears that the victim Samsung Life Insurance was to have been donated to the prosecution at the time of receiving the insurance money; ③ it appears that the victim was not the victim's request for suicide, and that the victim was not the victim's right to receive the insurance money, and that the victim was not the victim's right to claim for the above insurance money, and that the victim was not the victim's death insurance money, but the victim was the victim's 10th insurance contract, which was the victim's death insurance contract at the point of Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was the victim's insurance Claim No.

Therefore, this part of Defendant A’s assertion is without merit.

D. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

1) Whether Defendant A’s perception of murder is recognized

원심이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하여 인정되는 다음의 사정, 즉 ① 피고인 B는 검찰(1회)에서 차마 말하기는 어렵지만 피고인 A가 피해자를 살해한 것 같다는 취지로 진술한 점, ② 또한 검찰(2회)에서, 경찰수사가 계속되고 있을 당시 피고인 A가 피고인 C에게 다시 한 번 수면제를 처방받으라고 얘기를 하였고, 자신도 피고인 C에게 그렇게 하라고 말을 하였다는 취지로 진술하였으며, 피고인 A가 피고인 C에게 수면제를 다 먹었다고 진술하도록 한 이유에 대하여는 괜한 긁어 부스럼 만들기 싫어서 그런가 보다 생각하였으며, 피고인 A가 피해자에게 수면제를 먹였을까 생각은 하였지만 그것은 자신의 생각이기 때문에 단정적으로 물을 수가 없었다고 진술한 점, ③ 피해자의 사체에 대한 부검은 2010. 2. 12. 실시되었고, 부검감정서는 2010. 3. 5. 작성되어 2010. 3. 8. 안양동안경찰서에 송부되었고, 피고인 A, C이 경찰에서 참고인 조사를 받는 과정에서 피고인 B도 피해자의 몸에서 수면제 성분이 발견되었다는 말을 들었을 것으로 보이는 점, ④ 피고인 B는 피해자가 사망하기 전날 피고인 A의 요청으로 피고인 C이 수면제를 처방받아 피고인 A에게 전달한 사실을 알고 있었던 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인 B는 피해자 현대해상화재보험에 보험금 청구서를 제출한 2012. 2. 7.경 이미 피고인 A가 피해자에게 수면제를 먹게 하여 살해하였다는 것을 미필적으로나마 인식하였다고 봄이 상당하다.

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court and the first instance court on the crime of defraudation: ① appears to have had the intent to obtain insurance money from the Defendant A as seen earlier; ② Defendant A delegated all the authority to claim insurance money to the Defendant B; ② Defendant B submitted the “written claim for insurance money for modern marine fire and fire insurance”; ③ was entered as an insurance accident in the said written claim as an integradane addiction; Defendant B’s deposit account number was entered in the insurance money receipt account; ④ Defendant B suspended the payment of insurance money continuing to be automatically transferred after the victim’s death and asked for the refund of the insurance money paid after the victim’s death; and ④ it is difficult to view that Defendant B claimed for the return of the insurance money under the circumstance that Defendant B claimed for the return of the insurance money due to the failure to claim the return of the insurance money after the victim’s death after the lapse of the insurance money. Therefore, it is difficult to view that Defendant B claimed for the return of the insurance money under the circumstance that Defendant B claimed for the return of the insurance money for murder or termination of the insurance money.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, this part of Defendant B’s assertion is without merit.

E. Determination of the Prosecutor’s assertion

1) Defendant B’s murder

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the first instance court’s duly admitted and investigated evidence: (a) even though Defendant B was aware of the fact that it was deleted, it is insufficient to readily conclude that Defendant B took part in murder by entering the name of the victim purchased in the name of Defendant B in his mobile phone; (b) Defendant B’s search on several occasions with the Internet; (c) Defendant B and C were in front of the intention of B; and (d) there seems to have been a possibility that the victim could have expressed his intention at the time and method of delivery; (c) Defendant B’s change the beneficiary and contractor of the insurance before the victim’s death to Defendant B; (d) Defendant B could not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the victim’s death could not have been reported to Defendant B on the day before the victim’s death; and (e) the victim’s death could not be deemed to have been aware of the fact that the victim was aware of the fact that the victim died in the first instance on the day before the victim’s death; and (e) Defendant C’s death could not be acknowledged that the victim was aware of the victim’s death.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

2) Defendant C’s murder

As argued by the Prosecutor, it is difficult to recognize that Defendant C participated in the murder of Defendant A solely on the ground that there is such circumstance in light of the following: (a) the purchase of exemption at the request of Defendant A and the transfer of exemption at the request of Defendant A prior to the death of the victim to Defendant A; and (b) the victim’s insurance company in the victim’s insurance company changed the victim’s vehicle; and (c) the fact that Defendant A and Defendant C managed the insurance of Defendant B’s family; and (d) there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3) Each attempted fraud against the victim Samsung Bio-resources (Defendant B, C) and each attempted fraud against the victim's modern marine and fire insurance (Defendant A, B, and C)

A) Attempted fraud of the victim Samsung Bio-resources (Defendant B, C)

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found Defendant B and C not guilty of this part of the charges against Defendant B and C on April 4, 201, on the following grounds: (a) although it is recognized that Defendant A accompanied the Defendant B and C at the time of submitting the claim for the accident insurance proceeds to the AJ branch on April 4, 201; (b) Defendant B and C did not have participated in or participated in the commission of murder by Defendant A; and (c) Defendant B and C submitted the claim for the accident insurance proceeds to the relevant employee at their own expense; and (d) it is difficult to deem that Defendant B and C participated in the act of claiming the insurance proceeds by Defendant B and C solely on the ground that Defendant B and C accompanied the Defendant A accompanied, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B and C committed each fraud in collusion with the Defendant; and (c) there

(ii)The decision of the immediate deliberation;

(A) The following circumstances are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the trial court on the defendant B, i.e., the defendant B visited the above Samsung Bio-resources AJ branch to submit a claim for accident insurance proceeds. The defendant B submitted a draft of autopsy, the basic certificate of the defendant A, the victim's family relation certificate, the victim's family relation certificate, the marriage relation certificate, the defendant A's removed copy, the resident registration copy of the defendant A, and the copy of the passbook of the bank in the name of the defendant in the prosecutor's office and the trial court, and the defendant B stated that the defendant B prepared the above attached documents in the prosecutor's office and the trial court, and the defendant B stated that the defendant B prepared the above attached documents in the court of the trial, and as seen above, it seems that the defendant B had been aware of the negligence about the crime of murder by the defendant A, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant B took part in the attempted crime of fraud against the victim Samsung Bio-resources.

On the other hand, Defendant B asserts that he only submitted a claim for insurance money to discontinue the payment of insurance money and did not intend to acquire insurance money.

In light of the above, it seems that Defendant A knew of the fact that Defendant A died of the victim at the time of submitting the claim for insurance proceeds of this case; ② Defendant B also stated that the refund rate is so low that the termination of the insurance contract would not take the method of termination of the insurance contract; ③ Articles 12 and 13 of the Terms and Conditions of Samsung Life Insurance may be terminated unless the insurance premium is paid; ③ Article 30 of the Terms and Conditions of Samsung Life Insurance provides that the contract may be terminated if the termination refund is not paid even after the termination of the contract; and ③ Article 38 provides that the beneficiary or contractor may claim the insurance proceeds of this case, refund money for termination, and insurance premium exemption; ③ Defendant A’s claim for suicide is not “the claim for suicide exemption” or “the claim for insurance proceeds of this case,” but “the victim’s claim for suicide” after the termination of the insurance premium of this case, and it appears that Defendant A’s statement was made during the investigation process that Defendant A’s death was made based on the victim’s order to receive the insurance proceeds of this case.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument on Defendant B is with merit. As to Defendant C in this part

Defendant C stated in the court of the first instance that Defendant B was accompanied in the course of preparing the above attached documents, but it is insufficient to deem that Defendant B was involved in the crime of fraud of this case merely because he accompanied Defendant B, who is the husband, as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument against Defendant C is without merit.

B) The non-guilty part (Defendant A, B, and C) out of the attempted fraud of the victim's modern marine fire insurance

(1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court and the lower court found Defendant A, B, and C not guilty of attempted fraud on the grounds of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court and the lower court.

① The 'Undividend Partnership Damages Insurance' and 'Franchi Accident Insurance', which was concluded with the victim as the insured, are both the contractee and the beneficiary as the defendant B. Meanwhile, according to the terms and conditions of each of the above insurance contracts, since the insurance company does not pay the insurance money for the insured's accident and the accident caused intentionally by the beneficiary or the contractor, it is stipulated that the insurance company does not pay the insurance money. Thus, even if the insurance accident occurred due to the murder by the defendant A, as long as the defendant B, the contractor of each of the above insurance and the beneficiary, are not involved in the murder by the defendant A, there is no reason to refuse to pay the insurance money for the defendant B's claim.

② Therefore, even though Defendant B is not entitled to receive insurance money, the crime of attempted fraud in this part is not established under the premise that Defendant B, by deceiving modern maritime fire force, demanded insurance money.

③ Defendant A is not a policyholder or beneficiary with respect to each of the above insurances, and as long as Defendant A does not constitute a crime of attempted fraud, Defendant A does not constitute a crime of attempted fraud.

(4) Defendant C does not play any role in the murder of Defendant A and the respective insurance claims of Defendant B.

(ii)The decision of the immediate deliberation;

Examining the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court in light of the records and legal principles, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and the Prosecutor’s assertion disputing such determination is without merit.

4) Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence)

A) Judgment on the primary facts charged (the defendant A, B, and C' and the "use")

(1) On February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010, each of which is held.

Article 4(1) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (amended by Act No. 10786, Jun. 7, 2011; hereinafter the same) prohibits a person, other than a person handling narcotics, from possessing psychotropic drugs. However, Article 2 Subparag. 6 (h) of the same Act provides that where a person purchases or takes over psychotropic drugs from a retailer of narcotics, etc. under subparagraph 2 of the same Article, he/she shall be permitted to do so, and Article 2 Subparag. 6 (h) of the same Act provides that a pharmacy operator registered under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Act, who engages in the business of preparing and selling narcotics or psychotropic drugs in accordance with a prescription issued by a medical practitioner handling narcotics, etc., and item (i) of the same subparagraph provides that a person who is a medical doctor, dentist, oriental medical doctor, or veterinarian engaged in the medical treatment of animals under the Veterinarians Act, and who is a person who issues a prescription for medication or administration of narcotics or psychotropic drugs for the purpose of

The facts charged in this part of the facts charged are as follows: Defendant A, B, and C were diagnosed by scards, ethyl ices, etc. at their respective hospitals due to scards, ethyl disorders, etc. and possessed them at their pharmacies. Since Defendant A, B, and C was issued with a prescription for psychotropic drugs from the doctor who is a medical practitioner handling narcotics, it constitutes an act permitted pursuant to Article 4(1)2 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., since Defendant A, B, and C purchased and possessed psychotropic drugs from the establisher of a drug station, who is a

In this regard, the prosecutor asserts to the effect that the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) is established on each of the facts charged because he did not have the purpose of treatment to Defendant A, B, and C. However, Article 4(1) proviso 2 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. does not require the purpose of treatment.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, B, and C constitutes a case where the facts charged do not constitute a crime.

(2) The portion of "use"

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it can be acknowledged that Defendant A, at his own house on February 10, 2010, strokes and ethyl et al., strokes included in the stroke-mm and used it to kill the victim by drinking it by using a stroke-m in a stroke manner, and then to murder it by a stroke gas poisoning.

However, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that Defendant B and C participated in the above use of Defendant A, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, this part of the facts charged against Defendant B and C constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime.

B) The judgment on the conjunctive facts charged (the use of "the receipt" and "the defendant B" and "C" on February 9, 2010 of the defendant A, B and C)

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, at around 16:38, Feb. 8, 2010, Defendant C complained of the luxio Ma, purchased at a pharmacy with a prescription of ethyl 15,000, and purchased at the pharmacy, and around February 15:30, 2010, Defendant A received it, and Defendant A received it, respectively.

Defendant C’s act of purchasing and possessing psychotropic drugs at a pharmacy after receiving diagnosis of ethylis from a doctor after having been diagnosed by a ste source as an stephy, constitutes “receiving and receiving” prohibited under Article 61(1)4 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., even if the act is permissible under Article 4(1) proviso 2 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc., it is deemed that Defendant C’s act of delivering or receiving such drugs to another person without being administered or delivered without being administered.

Accordingly, with respect to Defendant A and C, there is a violation of the Narcotics Control Control Control Act by psychotropic drugs.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, Defendant B refused to accept the request for exemption to Defendant A, and Defendant C driving the vehicle with Defendant C at the time of having prescribed and purchased exemption to Defendant A at the request of Defendant A, and then delivered it to Defendant A, but the aforementioned act alone is insufficient to deem that Defendant C participated in the act of giving and receiving. In light of the above circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

As seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B and C participated in the “use of Defendant A’s exemption.”

C) On March 20, 2010, September 2, 2010, December 2, 2010, December 2, 2011, and March 28, 201, each part of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (hereinafter referred to as the "holdings" of the defendant A, B, and C) was examined and possessed by the defendant C after being directly treated by his/her doctor and purchasing tax exemption in accordance with his/her prescribed prescription. As seen earlier, the original decision that acquitted him/her pursuant to the proviso of Article 4(1)2 of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. is acceptable, and the prosecutor's assertion of this part is without merit.

5) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, Defendant A, B, and the victim’s insurance relationship appears to have been managed by Defendant B, and in fact, Defendant B appears to have been arranged the means of payment of insurance premiums, contractor, beneficiary, etc. for the convenience of management of the victim’s insurance as well as the victim’s insurance at that time; ② it is difficult to conclude that the family relation certificate was received from Defendant A was without the consent of the victim. ③ The fact that it is difficult to conclude that the consent was obtained by the victim. ③ The certificate of personal seal impression attached to the application for change of the contractual relationship is indicated as being issued by the victim himself/herself; ③ The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to exclude reasonable doubt and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this part of the charges.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

6) In light of the following facts, Defendant A’s attempted attempted to commit a murder, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the Defendant D did not appear to have participated in the murder of Defendant A, and the fact that Defendant A was investigated as a bereaved family member who was not the suspect at the time of submitting the claim for insurance money, and ii) the Defendant A was asserting the intention to commit an accident, iii) the solicitation and assistance of Defendant A was considered to have served as an insurance solicitor, and it is difficult to view that Defendant A was aware of the murder of the victim, or aiding and abetting the attempted to commit an attempted crime, even though not falling under the causes for the payment of insurance money, and the Prosecutor’s assertion that it was not reasonable to challenge the prosecutor’s assertion that the Defendant A was not the suspect at the time of submitting the claim for insurance money.

5. Conclusion

Of the acquittal portion of the judgment of the court below, the part on the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (finite) against Defendant A, B, and C on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010, among the acquitted parts of the judgment of the court below, is reversed ex officio, and the part on each attempted fraud against Defendant B in relation to the victim Samsung Bio-resources against Defendant B among the acquitted parts of the judgment of the court below is justified by the prosecutor. However, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed ex officio or the prosecutor’s appeal is accepted, and the guilty part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A and B should be sentenced to a single sentence within the term of punishment aggravated under Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, and this part shall also be reversed together.

Therefore, under Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, without examining the argument of unfair sentencing by Defendant A, B, and the prosecutor, each of the above parts of the judgment below shall be reversed, and this decision shall be rendered again as follows.

Meanwhile, among the non-guilty portion of the lower judgment, the part against Defendant D and the murder committed by Defendant B and C, the victim Samsung Bio-resources of Defendant C, each attempted fraud against Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance, Defendant A, B, and C, the victim Samsung Fire Insurance, and each attempted fraud against LIG damage insurance, and each attempted fraud against Defendant A and B’s modern marine fire insurance (non-dividend-off partnership accident insurance and non-dividend new driver injury insurance), and each attempted fraud against the Defendant A and B’s modern marine fire insurance (non-dividend accident insurance, non-dividend new driver injury insurance), the Defendant A, B, and C’s act committed on March 30, 2010; the Defendant A, B, and C’s act of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (fence) on December 2, 2010; the violation of the Resident Registration Act (fence); the violation of the Resident Registration Act; the violation of the Defendant A and B’s private document; and the prosecutor’s use of the above investigation document was without merit.

The summary of the facts constituting the crime and the evidence. The facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence are as follows, and paragraph (3) is added, and the summary of the evidence is added to "each police statement and investigation report (CN statement)" in the column of the evidence, all of the judgment below are the same as that of each corresponding column of the judgment below, and thus, they are invoked as it is in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

【Modification of Facts of Crimes】

A. The "Defendant A" in the 8th third place was examined as "Defendant A and "B," and the "fiveth place" in the 5th place, and the defendant B was investigated by the police station during the safe period after N's death and discovered a large quantity of exempted ingredients in the N's body as a result of the autopsy on the N's body, and then the defendant A was believed to have killed the N's body, and the defendant A was changed as "the defendant A and B" in the 8th place.

(b) 9. The following shall be added to the nineth:

3. Defendant A and C shall not receive or use the drugs that are less likely to be misused or abused because they are not the persons handling narcotics, etc., and are used for medical treatment, and which are less likely to cause physical or mental dependence in the event of misuse or abuse, or the psychotropic drugs or other psychotropic drugs containing such substances, which are substances containing such drugs, etc.;

A. Defendant C was ordered from Defendant A to purchase the drugs by stroke-mm, a stroke-type, at around 16:38 on February 8, 2010, upon receiving an instruction from Defendant A to request Defendant A to purchase the drugs by stroke-m, and complaining of false stroke-type stroke-m, at around 16:38 on February 8, 2010, after receiving a diagnosis of stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type stroke-type 1:15:30 on September 15:30 on

B. At around 15:30 on February 9, 2010, Defendant A received psychotropic drugs from Defendant C with ethyl 15 (15) purchased by Defendant C upon the prescription as above. From around 00:0 on February 10, 2010 to 02:32, Defendant A used psychotropic drugs to murder N by forcing N to die with shot gas addiction.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (homicide) and Articles 352 and 347(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted fraud of the victim Samsung Bio-resources and Hyundai Marine and Fire Insurance) of the Criminal Act; and Articles 61(1)4 and 4(1) and 2 subparag. 4(d) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (the point of delivery and use of psychotropic drugs) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics,

B. Defendant B: Articles 352, 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act (each attempted fraud against the victim Samsung Bio-resources and Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance)

(c) Defendant C: Articles 61(1)4, 4(1), and 2 subparag. 4 (d) of the former Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Giving and receiving psychotropic drugs)

1. Commercial concurrence (Defendant A and B);

Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Code (Punishments on the charge of attempted fraud against Samsung Bio-resources, and punishment on the charge of attempted fraud concerning consolidated distribution of profits without heavier weight)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of murder (Provided, That the maximum of the punishment shall be 15 years of imprisonment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010); each attempted fraud; and each choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of violation of the Narcotics Control Act (the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.)

B. Defendant B: Determination of imprisonment with prison labor

C. Defendant C: Selection of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes (Defendant A and B);

Articles 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and 50 (Criminal Defendant A shall be sentenced to the punishment prescribed for the most severe murder; Defendant B shall be sentenced to the punishment prescribed for the most severe murder; and Defendant B shall be sentenced to the punishment prescribed for the crime of attempted murder against Victim Samsung Samsung Bio-resources) of each Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant C);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for a period of five years to twenty years; and

(b) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crime: homicide;

[Determination of Punishment] homicide, Type 3 (Influoral homicide)

【Special homicide】 Advanced homicide (Aggravated)

[Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation (at least 15 years of imprisonment, at least weapons)

(b) Concurrent crimes: Crimes of violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (fence) and each attempted fraud for which the sentencing criteria are not set; and

(3) modified sentencing range: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years (compliance with the lower limit of the crime of homicide): 20 years;

The sentencing conditions that are disadvantageous to the defendant are the following: (a) the defendant, who was in an internal fluorial relationship with the victim who was in an internal fluorial relationship; (b) murdered by taking advantage of water exemption and fluor gas for the purpose of deceiving insurance money; (c) deceiving the victim insurance companies as if the victim died of an accident; and (d) denied the crime by deceiving the victim; (b) destroying the statement in line with the progress of the investigation; (c) ordering the defendant C to make a false statement; (d) attempted to conceal the crime; (e) attempted to have the crime committed; and (e) continuing the statement that is difficult to accept without opposing the error; and (e) continuing the statement that is difficult to accept without taking advantage of the quality of the victim’s flag, the defendant’s age, character and behavior, the environment, the circumstances of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing conditions, and shall be determined as follows:

2. Defendant B

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to 15 years; and

(b) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months; and

The Defendant participated in claiming insurance money for the purpose of acquiring insurance money under the circumstance that was revealed in the investigation process of the instant case, the attitude of Defendant A, etc., and that Defendant A could have sufficiently known that Defendant A murdered N.

On the other hand, the punishment as ordered is determined in consideration of various circumstances, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, criminal records, health status, and family relationship, which are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the argument of this case.

3. Defendant C

(a) The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for one month to five years; and

(b) Sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Types] Medication, Simple Possession, etc.

[Special Sentencing] Where there is a reason to take special account of the commission of a crime or the motive of a crime (Mitigation)

[Scope of Recommendation] 6 months to 10 months in the mitigation area / [Suspension of Execution] / Cases where there are special grounds for taking into account the commission of a crime or motive for a crime

C. Determination of sentence: 6 months in prison, one year in suspended sentence, one year in suspended sentence, was falsely prescribed and delivered to A by the defendant at the request of A, and thus, the exemption was used as a tool for murder; the defendant made a false statement about the process of having prescribed exemption in the investigation process; further, he brought about confusion in the investigation by repeatedly complaining of false symptoms and having prescribed exemption. Meanwhile, the fact that it is an act upon the request of A, which is a machine, is an act upon the request of A, seems to be contrary to mistake; and other various sentencing conditions such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, circumstances of the crime of this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as per the Disposition.

1. Part 1. The summary of the facts charged in this part of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (Defendant A, B, and C) as the primary facts charged is the same as that of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (Provided, That with respect to Defendant A, the part of the facts charged in the primary facts charged in the above paragraph 3 is found guilty, and this part is excluded).

2) As seen in the above 4-Ra, 4-Ra, and 5-Ga above, the point of "bearing of each psychotropic drug" on February 8, 2010 and February 9, 2010 with respect to Defendant A, B, and C should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, since it constitutes a case where the crime is not committed. In addition, the point of "use of each psychotropic drug with respect to Defendant B and C" constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act should be pronounced not guilty.

3) On the other hand, the prosecutor instituted a prosecution only for the psychotropic drugs' possession among the primary facts charged in this part of the indictment, but after the judgment of not guilty was rendered at the court of original trial, it added to the primary facts charged by adding the 'use of psychotropic drugs' to the 'use of psychotropic drugs' and the 'use of psychotropic drugs' as stated in the main facts charged. The prosecutor does not specify the possession of psychotropic drugs and the 'use of psychotropic drugs' individually as stated in the ancillary facts charged. However, in light of the circumstances of the above modification of the indictment, it is reasonable to view that the prosecutor seeks to determine the 'bearing', which is the existing facts charged in relation to A, B, and C, as the main facts charged in the primary facts charged in the indictment, and the 'use of psychotropic drugs' and the 'use of psychotropic drugs' as stated in the ancillary facts in the judgment of not guilty. Accordingly, as to Defendant A and C, the prosecutor does not find the Defendant not guilty of the 'exclusive facts charged in relation to C' as stated in the indictment.

2. The summary of the ancillary charge of the violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the "Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc.", which is the ancillary charge (the defendant B and the defendant C1) is the same as the description of the "preliminary charge" (the "receiving" and the "use")" under the above 3-D, 4) and (b). As seen in the above 4-D, it constitutes a case where there is no evidence of a crime, and thus, a not-guilty verdict is rendered pursuant to the

2) The summary of this part of the facts charged against Defendant C constitutes a case where there is no evidence of a crime as seen in the same (3) of the facts charged as stated in the above (3) of the facts charged as stated in the above (3), (4), (4) and (b), and thus, a verdict of innocence pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The judges of the presiding judge, Gimdong.

Judgment's normal rules

Judge Goo-de

1) In the name of the insurance company below, the part of the company is omitted.

2) The Prosecutor’s petition of appeal contains sufficient evidence to acknowledge the facts charged against the Defendant, and it is false to mislead the Defendant of the facts.

Although "the appeal box is to seek correction for a crime committed," it is stated as "the appeal box", it is only stated as such, and it is also specified as other specific matters.

Unless the grounds for appeal are specified, it shall not be deemed legitimate entry in the grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 20052564, Mar. 30, 2006).

(ix) the Commission;

3) According to the medical records of the V Hospital attached to the statement of reasons for appeal filed by Defendant A on July 12, 2012, Defendant A received medical treatment on January 2, 2010 and five years before Defendant A received medical treatment.

It is stated that the construction business has been discontinued.

(iv) evidence records 5539 pages

(v) evidence records 867 pages

6) The head of Samsung Bio-AI branch office BA shall apply only by a policyholder when there is no special agreement for conversion of the above life insurance in the court of the court below, even if there is no special agreement for conversion of pension.

was stated at any time that a pension can be converted into a pension form. 430 pages of the trial records

7) 753 pages, 756 pages of the trial records

8) Evidence records 2834 pages

9) 766 pages of the trial records

10) According to the statement of the autopsy report, ambrichloroethyl is an eculphal agents used for eculpha, eculphal ether and tecrichloroethyl ether.

LAE is an external Ambassador from a living body which is detected after ambrichloroethyl dye. The blood ethyl concentration of the ambrye is 0.05 to 0.2 g/L.

In the case of death for over-crypethyl ethyl (four cases), the concentration of ambriethyl ethyl was average 3.7g/L (the scope was 2.7 to 4.7g/L);

The concentration of Norway was average of 1.1mg/L (the scope is 0.5 to 1.7mg/L). A strokem is a grost used for stroke, etc.

The treatment concentration is 0.08 to 0.3g/L, the toxicity concentration is 0.5g/L, and the death concentration is 2-4g/L.

11) Statement of request for appraisal by a medical person AT, 2361 pages of evidence records

12) As to the ground for finding the death of the victim within 18:48 from around 12:49 to around 12:49 to the victim.

As above, it is argued that the victim was able to see himself and herself to have died when he was aware of her being frighten and her being frighted.

13) Since one person’s usual knowledge is easily divingd, it should be deemed that it is shorter in light of the victim’s blood transfusion exemption concentration.

14) The circumstances leading up to finding a hospital would also allow Defendant A to receive medical treatment, as seen earlier.

15) The trial records 782 pages

16) The trial records 785 pages

17) The trial records 785 pages

18) AR made a statement that the victim is aware that it would be between the defendant B and the victim (787 pages of the trial record). The defendant A made a statement that the victim would be aware that it would be between the defendant B and the defendant B

The admission seems to have credibility in the statement of the above AR because it was around 2008 (Evidence Records 2808).

19) Evidence records 1002 pages

20) Evidence records 2829 pages, 755 pages of the trial records

21) Evidence records 161 pages

22) Evidence records 4953 pages

23) Evidence records 4969 pages

24) Evidence records 5248 pages

25) Evidence records 826 pages

26) At the time Defendant A stated that it is the same between the Defendant (which is located in his ward). The evidence records 1661 pages

27) In the situation where Defendant A’s body is not good and strawing up to a string, there are more smoked coal in the house, and 40,00 out of them;

It is difficult to see that it did not go.

28) According to Defendant A’s statement, Defendant A’s house held at around 02:32, and Defendant A’s personnel who was the victim was the victim of his house.

The defendant C is not in her state, and most of the victims are under the influence of the state of alcohol, but all of them are in the management of the fluence, and the fire is destroyed.

The steam Records No. 5250 pages 5

29) Evidence records 5247 to 5250 pages

30) Evidence records 6393 pages

31) Evidence records 2266 pages

32) Evidence records 2247 pages

33) Evidence records 562 pages

34) Evidence records No more than 1719 pages (the police's statement of July 14, 2010) and Defendant A: (a) was aware of the fact that she had a good family; and (b) was happy.

It is essential to see that it was difficult to commit suicide. It is also necessary to see that the hand was lost due to the failure of the hand in the previous life, and there is another woman.

Along with this, I stated that, if you were to commit suicide, I would like to do so, I would like to say that I would like to understand, and "I would like to die on their own by mistake, I would like to say that I would like to understand."

I also stated that "I see no matter what it is? I think, we now need to see my idea. I am about to fright after drinking with drinking and good things.

Therefore, it has been drinking more than normal times, red ginseng was drinking, strokeed, and strokeed to the degree that there is a stroke, and strokeed to the degree that there is no shot gas.

H. Although there are five luxanes, since there are no luxanes, since there are five luxanes, it is necessary to gather but if we think, it is so.

게 생각할 수밖에 없어요", "걔는 자살할 이유도 없었고 나한테 언질을 준적도 없어요... 저한테 재산이 어마어마하게 많은데

The statement was made as "I Dok I Dok."

35) Evidence records 4949 pages

36) Evidence records 5113 pages

37) Evidence records 5684 pages

38) Evidence records 6388 pages

39) Evidence records 6393 pages

40) Evidence records 2266 pages

41) Evidence records 2247 pages

42) Evidence records 562 pages

43) Evidence records 4761 pages

44) Defendant A was arrested on 1, 10.11, 2012 and received the first examination of suspect.