Punishment in case where it has been extremely difficult to discover the whereabouts of the corpse;

An act of making it extremely difficult to discover the whereabouts of a corpse, shall not be considered as a crime of concealment of the corpse, but shall not be considered as a crime of abandonment of the corpse.

Article 161 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (71 Gohap45 delivered on April 1, 200)

(1) Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 2 is reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

One hundred and forty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

(2) Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

(1) The prosecutor's reasons for appeal against Defendant 2 are as follows: (a) there is no reason to consider the motive for the crime; and (b) there is no reason to find out that the means of the appeal are extremely cruel; and (c) there is no reason to deny the fact of the crime; (d) thus, the court below has always imposed an excessive and somewhat light punishment on Defendant 2.

(2) The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants, defense counsel and the Defendants, as follows: first, in the case of Defendant 1, the victim Lee Sung-hee and Lee Jong-hee, in the case of Defendant 1, they would be punished for each other with debt payment demand relation, and the defendant did not fall into the Dong, and in the case of Defendant 2, the defendant did not process this case in collusion with the above defendant, and did not process the body of the victim in collusion with the above defendant, and the body of the victim was lost, and the court below acknowledged facts without any evidence, thereby affecting the judgment; second, in the case of the defendants, the court below found the defendants to have committed the crime of hiding the body of the victim as the crime of hiding the body of the defendants; second, if the court below committed the crime of hiding the body of the defendants to the crime of hiding the body of the defendants, it cannot constitute a benefiting crime; third, even if not, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the body of the defendants; third, even if it did not so, the court below did not assist the defendants to pay the defendant 1 with an obligation to the victim.

(3) Therefore, as the court below decided, after examining the evidence lawfully adopted by the court below as to the assertion of facts in violation of the rules of evidence or erroneous determination of facts, the defendants conspired with each other to find any illegality in the process of confirming facts, and there is no reason to see this issue, and then, unlike the Japanese Criminal Code, Article 161 of the Korean Criminal Code provides for the crime other than abandonment of the body, and it is extremely difficult to find the whereabouts of the defendant's body as stated in the original sentence, and it is difficult to ask the prosecutor's request for cooperation on the fact that there is no difference between the defendant and the defendant's life-related liability for the victim and the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's right to ask the defendant's death, and thus, it cannot be accepted as opposed to this point of view. Furthermore, the court below's argument that the defendant's life-related liability for the victim and the defendant's defense counsel's defense counsel's defense counsel's right to ask the defendant's defense counsel for an unfair sentencing cannot be accepted.

Therefore, Defendant 1’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Defendant 2’s appeal is well-grounded, and Defendant 2’s appeal is reversed from the judgment below and the party members are determined as follows through pleading.

Since the criminal facts and evidence relations of Defendant 2, which the members decided, are the same as those at the time of original adjudication, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

In light of the law, the court below's judgment Nos. 1-2 (1), 30 of the Criminal Code provides that the court below's judgment Nos. 1-2 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that the court below's judgment Nos. 350 (1), 161 (1), and 30 of the Criminal Code provides that the court below's judgment Nos. 1-2 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that the court below's judgment Nos. 1-2 shall choose the prescribed term of imprisonment, and the above two crimes of the defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the same Code. Thus, the defendant's judgment No. 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Code provides that the defendant shall be sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment and 140 days of detention prior to the sentence of the court below pursuant to Article 57 of the

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Han Man-Shan (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul