Defendant

Defendant

Captain Kim Jong-han

Law Firm Openr Law Firm, Attorneys Lee Don-do et al.

Mads

1 Camp Military Command General Military Court Decision 2014Ra10 decided February 3, 2015 (Jurisdiction, and confirmation according to the original judgment on February 13, 2015)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The crime of this case was caused by the bullying and bullying of the chairman, and the crime of this case was caused by the patrol log of the ○○-△△△△ Hospital, and eventually, it was caused by the crime of this case without participating in the last day, which was considered as an element of reduction of punishment, but the sentencing of the lower court, which determined the punishment against the Defendant by death penalty, is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of this Court

(a) Requirements for a sentence of death penalty to be permitted;

In light of the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, which can be introduced by the dual judicial system of a marry state, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only when there are objective circumstances to recognize it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment. Therefore, in imposing death penalty, the sentence of death penalty should be determined by comprehensively considering the offender’s age, occupation and experience, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of criminal records, relationship with the victim, motive for the crime, degree of preparation, means and method, cruel and malicious degree, degree of importance of the result, number of victims and damage assessment, the depth and attitude of the crime after the crime, the degree of damage recovery, the degree of damage recovery, and concerns about recidivism, etc. Furthermore, it is necessary to review whether or not the defendant’s psychological decision should be made by comprehensively considering the aforementioned special circumstances, including the following changes in the sentencing of the Supreme Court before and after the judgment’s 90th sentence.

B. Terms of sentencing as indicated in the instant case

In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below and the statement of the defendant in this court, the following circumstances are recognized.

1) The growth process, school life, and friendship of the defendant

The Defendant, who was born to South and North Korea, had no economic difficulty, and had a relatively fluorous family environment. The Defendant, after entering an elementary school, had both elementary, middle, and high schools in Suwon, and had their parents in the Suwon, middle, and high schools before leaving the high school, except that the parents transferred to the elementary school again from Suwon, due to the funeral of the parents. The academic achievement was equal, and the parents did not have any problem.

피고인은 어려서부터 발음이 부정확해서 초등학교 때부터 따돌림을 당했고 이로 인해 스스로 주눅이 들어 자신의 생각이나 감정을 적극적으로 표현하지 못하고 소극적으로 생활하였으며, 그로 인해 초등학교 시절에는 2명의 친구와 친하게 지냈으나 중·고등학교 시절에는 겨우 1명의 친구를 사귈 정도였다. 피고인은 초등학교에서는 심성은 착하나 내성적인 성격으로 말이 없으며, 집단활동에 잘 적응하지 못하고, 친구들과 사귀기를 싫어하며 자기중심적이라는 평가를 받았고, 중학교에서는 온순하고 타협적인 성격으로 주위 친구들과 의견대립이 없으나 학급 일에 좀 더 적극적인 자세가 요구된다는 평가를 받았으며, 고등학교에서는 3학년 때 자퇴하기 전까지 근면 성실하고 차분한 성격으로 학급 일에 협조적이며, 규칙을 잘 지키고 예의 바르게 행동하고, 독서를 많이 하며 자신이 해야 할 일을 계획하고 실천하는 능력이 뛰어나다는 평가를 받았다.

On the other hand, it is difficult to resolve pressured labor by taking the lead of the defendant as murdering in the upper part of the news about the students who committed suicide in the third year of the middle school, and the issue of school violence in Korea in the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the school of the first year of the school of the school of the first year of the school of the school of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the first day of the school of the school of the school of the first day of the school of the fourth.

(ii) Barrack life and service attitude after entering the army;

The Defendant completed a high school with the official approval announcement in 201, and attended the first-year course of the department of Do-won, Do-U.S. on December 17, 2012, and completed training with entering the Gun on December 17, 2012, and was assigned to the △△△△△△ Group, 3 large 11 medium 1st unit (FEBA) after being transferred to the position of a single small 1st unit after being assigned to the three large 1st unit (FEBA), and was assigned from December 16, 2013 to the office of ○○ at the time of the instant crime.

On November 1, 2013, the Defendant was promoted to the sick and wounded on November 1, 2013, and on June 1, 2013, and the scheduled date of discharge was September 16, 2014.

○○○ early was organized and operated in the middle of Nonindicted 22, the vice president Nonindicted 25, and the first minute (Nonindicted 1’s second class, Nonindicted 9’s first class, Nonindicted 7’s first class, Nonindicted 6’s first class, Nonindicted 10’s first class, Nonindicted 3’s second class, and second class (the first class of Nonindicted 8’s second class), and the third class (the first class of the first class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class of the class.

With respect to Defendant’s ordinary service attitude, most of the supporters considered that Defendant was able to use the cyber knowledge information room, mainly by using the cyber knowledge information room, to open it to work or event, and that ordinary cyber knowledge information room was late due to late use. 2)

Of the early 201, Nonindicted 22, who was in charge of the branch office from August 2013 to April 2014, when the Defendant was in a company (FEBA), did not hold a personal interview with the outside director or a counselor, and the body house was dissatisfyed with a little character, and the horse satisfy was divided into several motivations, and it was well-known from the motivers. In addition, Nonindicted 23, who was in charge of the branch office from August 2013 to April 2014, when the Defendant was in a company (FEBA), was in a company (FEBA), and Nonindicted 23, who was in charge of the branch office, did not appear to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have.

한편, 피고인은 동기들 중 공소외 15, 공소외 16과는 싸우기도 하여 사이가 좋지 않았으나 다른 동기들과는 외형적으로는 친한 관계로 지냈고, 또한 후임들과의 관계와 관련하여, 피고인이 평소 후임들에게는 관심이 없고 혼자 생활하는 것을 좋아했고 소심하여 서먹서먹했는데, 특히 분대원 중 상병 공소외 7과 상병 공소외 6은 맏후임들로서 입대 초기인 중대(FEBA) 근무 시절에는 피고인과 사이가 좋았으나 피고인이 부분대장이 된 후 폭행과 욕설을 하며 심한 질책을 하자 배신감을 느껴 그 때부터 피고인을 멀리함으로써 피고인과 갈등관계에 주4) 있었으나 , 다른 후임들과는 평범한 선·후임 관계를 유지하였고, 특히 공소외 5, 공소외 10, 공소외 3이나 공소외 2와는 비교적 친한 관계로 생활하였다.

3) The motive for committing the crime

As to the motive of the crime, the Defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that bullying and bullying of the soldiers were the cause of the instant case, such as assault, separate name, and disregarding of the soldiers, and that the bullying was committed by the patrol log at ○○-△△△△△, and that the bullying caused the instant crime without any participation, which led to the instant crime, ought to be considered as a prison element.

Specifically, according to the circumstances and motive of the crime committed by the defendant, the military police officer tried to kill himself/herself at the time of committing the crime, and tried to capture himself/herself, and herself as well as to kill himself/herself on the day of the crime, and tried to see that he/she did not have any other way to kill himself/herself, and that he/she did not have any way to see that he/she did not have any way to kill himself/herself until she died, and that he/she did not have any way to see that she did not have any way to kill himself/herself, and that she did not have any way to see that she did not have any way to see that she did not have any way to see that she had any way to her daily life, such as she did not have any way to kill himself/herself, and that she did not have any way to she had any way to she had any way to she had any way to she had any influence.

Meanwhile, until the investigation stage and the original trial, the defendant argued that Non-Indicted 25 had led Non-Indicted 25's act of bullying with the beginning, or that he was in an atmosphere responding to his bullying, and that he was bullying from the beginning of the lawsuit. However, in the trial, he did not say that he was bullying with the beginning of the lawsuit that he was in a group, and that he did not speak that he was in violence, bullying and bullying, and that he did not say that she was in a group, and there was only a part of it, and that there was no other person who knew about the remaining atmosphere to that degree, and that he did not know about the remaining atmosphere, the same was distorted, and at the time of the military police investigation, the defendant stated that he did not appear to have been able to make a statement from Non-Indicted 25's first time to the effect that he did not have any personality or personality, and that he did not have any intention to make a statement from Non-Indicted 25's first time to the effect that he made a statement from Non-Indicted 2's statement.

Therefore, we will examine the following facts: (a) the Defendant received harassment and bullying from the soldiers in the military life; (b) whether the content of the picture taken from the patrol log in the ○○-△△△△ Hospital could cause the instant crime; and (c) whether such factors had an impact on the motive of the Defendant’s crime; and (d) whether such factors could be used as a ground for normal participation.

(1) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion on assault

The Defendant asserts that Nonindicted 32 committed an act of assaulting and insulting character by Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 1 Staff sergeant, and Nonindicted 32 in the event of a serious company (FEBA).

가) 피고인은 구체적인 공소외 25의 폭행 및 괴롭힘에 대하여, ① 2014. 3. 초순경부터 막사 등에서 볼 때마다 폭행하고, 돌멩이를 자신의 얼굴에 던져 폭행하였다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 피고인의 진술에 의하더라도 폭행의 횟수 및 강도(헌병 최초 조사에서는 2014. 3. 초순부터 시간, 특정 장소를 가리지 않고 볼 때마다 폭행했고 통증을 느낄 정도의 강도였다고 진술하였으나 헌병 8회 조사에서는 10회 미만이었고 찰싹 소리가 나서 기분 나쁠 정도였다고 진술하였고, 돌멩이에 의한 폭행도 당시 누가 있었는지는 기억나지 않는다고 진술하였다) 등에 있어 진술의 일관성이 부족하고 폭행의 목격자나 행위 당시의 상황에 대한 구체적 진술이 전혀 없는 점, 공소외 25는 뒷목을 툭툭 친 것은 친근감의 표시로 피고인뿐만 아니라 다른 소초원들에게도 한 것으로 강도가 약하여 폭행이라고 생각하지 않았고 돌멩이는 던진 사실이 없다고 진술한 점, 공소외 17도 ‘공소외 25가 소초원들의 머리를 치고 지나가는 것은 본 적이 없고, 그냥 가벼운 스킨쉽처럼 등을 툭 치면서 지나가는 경우는 봤는데, 근무 투입 전·후의 격려차원 수준이었다’고 진술한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인의 주장 외에 이를 입증할 증거 없으므로 피고인의 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

또한 ② 2014. 4.경 복도에서 ‘슬라임’이라고 여러 번 불러서 아무런 대답을 하지 않았더니 간부가 부르는데 대답을 하지 않는다는 이유로 뒷목을 폭행하였으며, 2014. 4.경 공소외 13과 대화 중 옆에 앉아 있는 자신을 가리키며 ‘얘는 나중에 전역해서 폐지 줍는 일을 할 거다’, ‘예전에 피고인과 비슷한 놈이 있었는데 탈영하다가 나한테 잡혔다’는 등의 말을 했고, 2014. 4. - 5.경 철책점검 중 피고인의 뒤에서 공소외 25가 따라오면서 ‘말 달려라, 이랴, 힘 써봐라’고 하며 피고인의 총을 잡고 끌고 가게 하였으며, 2014. 5.경 유류고 작업 중 여러 사람이 있는 가운데 피고인이 기름통을 한쪽으로 기울게 놓게 되자 공소외 25가 ‘얘는 힘이 안 돼서 안 된다’고 말하고 다른 사람들과 함께 ‘슬라임’이라고 하면서 웃었고, 2014. 5. 10. 소초의 날 행사 때 피고인이 공소외 16과 싸운 후 근무를 바꾸어 달라고 했음에도 들어주지 않고 ‘둘이 총을 쏴서 죽든 말든 마음대로 하라’는 말한 사실이 있다고 주장하므로 살피건대, 공소외 25는 철책점검 중 순찰로에서 피고인의 총기를 잡고 끌고 가게 함으로써 피고인을 힘들게 한 것은 자신의 잘못이라고 인정하면서 다만 피고인 외에 다른 인원에게도 장난으로 한 것이고 피고인도 싫어하는 것으로 보이지 않았다고 진술하였고, 유류탱크 공사 때 공소외 17이 ‘슬라임’이라고 부른 것 같고 거기에 동조한 것 같다고 진술하여 일부 사실은 인정하였으나, 나머지 부분에 대해서는 피고인의 주장 외에 달리 이를 입증할 증거가 없으므로 피고인의 주장은 받아들이지 않는다.

B) In full view of Nonindicted 1’s 2014 and Nonindicted 1’s 2014, the Defendant stated that Nonindicted 3 was frightened at least 10 times, and that Nonindicted 13 was frighten and was frightened for reasons not like those of the FEBA, and that Nonindicted 9 was frighten and kneed at the time of his frightening Nonindicted 3’s frighten and kneed statement, and that Nonindicted 3’s frighten and kneed statement was 10 - 15 times, and that Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 21 were frighten of the Defendant’s frighten and frightened, and that Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 21 were frighten and frightened, and that Nonindicted 9 were not frighten and frightd, and that Nonindicted 9 and Nonindicted 21 were frighten and frightd for the Defendant’s fright.

C) In relation to Nonindicted 32’s act, Nonindicted 3, 201, Nonindicted 2, etc., the Defendant, who was frightened and frighted, was frightened, and the Defendant was frighten and frightened, and the Defendant was frighten and frighted so that he was frighten and frighted, and the Defendant was frighten and frighted, so that he was frighten and frightened to 3 at the time when she was frighten and frighted, and Nonindicted 3 was frighten and frighted, and Nonindicted 3 was frighten and frighted, and the Defendant was frighten and frighted, who was frighten and frighted to fright at the time when she was frighted to fright, and the Defendant was frightd and frighted.

D) Therefore, Nonindicted 25’s act of towing a gun during the bar book inspection, the act of aiding and abetting the gun when the name of the Defendant was worn out, etc. is recognized, and Nonindicted 25’s act appears to have failed to perform his responsibilities as a father-insium to manage the Defendant’s personal name more closely. Nonindicted 32’s act was committed against the Defendant, who is a private soldier, while the act was committed against the Defendant, and was committed against the other soldiers as well as the Defendant, even though it did not appear that such act was committed against the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have suffered a serious pain.

However, the Defendant did not file a complaint because other soldiers who assaulted or insulting him was unable to feel the necessity of the complaint, and the content of Nonindicted 25's complaint against Nonindicted 25 stated that the degree of assault was not excessive and the frequency of assault was not high. Nonindicted 32's act is an act at the time when the Defendant was sexually or seriously ill, and the Defendant was able to sufficiently deliver his grievance through a main text that took effect at the beginning of the suit, and the Defendant was able to sufficiently respond to his grievance without reflection of the survey, and the Defendant was able to attend the match in the military unit. However, the Defendant stated to the effect that he was able to easily accept the Defendant's allegation that he did not go through other military violence procedures without going through any other military violence in the first three months prior to his discharge (FEBA) in light of the motive that the Defendant was sexually ill or seriously ill, the Defendant's act of insulting the Defendant's crime of this case without going through any other military violence procedures (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted 25's motive to the Defendant”).

(2) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion on the harassment of the first sources of action

피고인은 공소외 7과 공소외 6은 자신을 괴롭힌 것보다는 후임임에도 자신에게 대놓고 싫어하는 티를 내지는 않았지만 말을 걸어도 대답을 안 하거나 모른 척 하고 경례를 하지 않는 등 무시하는 태도를 보였다고 주장하므로 살피건대, ① 공소외 12는 ‘피고인이 선임병이지만 자신의 일도 제대로 하지 않고 누리기만 하려는 모습을 보이는 등 짬티를 부려 경례를 하지 않고 무시해버린 사실이 있고, 공소외 7과 공소외 6도 피고인이 평소 청소도 안 하고 작업도 열심히 하지 않는다고 하면서 피고인에 대한 욕을 하거나 피고인이라고 반말을 하기도 하였다’고 진술하였고, ② 공소외 6은 ‘피고인이 자신의 머리를 툭툭 치면서 20회 이상 관등성명을 대도록 하고, 자신의 멱살을 잡고 욕설을 하기도 하였으며, 후임들 관물대 정리가 안 되어 있다는 이유로 자신의 관물대에서 옷들을 꺼내 바닥에 던져버린 적도 있다. 피고인은 혼자 행동을 많이 하는데 통상 6명이 근무를 마치면 탄과 총기 반납을 함께 마무리 한 후 식사를 하러 가는데 피고인은 제일 먼저 반납하고 총기현황판도 작성하지 않고 그냥 생활관으로 가서 환복하고 식사하러 가고, 나머지 근무자들이 환복하고 식당으로 가면 피고인은 이미 식사를 마치고 나간다. 피고인을 보고 경례를 안 하고 이름을 부르면 작게 대답하고 자신의 동기들과 있을 때 피고인이라고 불렀다. 2014. 4.말 - 5. 중순경까지 초소근무 설 때 1-2개씩 그림(안경 쓰고 앞머리 숱이 적고, 몸이 말랐고, 라면을 즐겨 먹고, 책을 읽는 모습 등)을 그렸다. 원래 피고인과 사이가 안 좋았는데 피고인이 개인행동을 하고 지나친 장난을 칠 때 등 피고인이 짜증나게 할 때마다 스트레스를 풀기 위해 그림을 그렸다. 피고인과는 소초(GOP) 투입 후 피고인과 함께 수십 차례 근무를 섰지만 말을 거의 하지 않았다’고 진술하였으며, ③ 공소외 11은 ‘생활관에서 보더라도 피고인은 혼자 책을 읽고 음악을 듣고 있었다. 동기생인 공소외 17, 공소외 14 병장과는 대화를 하고 가까워 보였는데, 다른 선임병들과 어울리지 않았다. 공소외 17 병장과 공소외 14 병장을 제외한 다른 소초원들은 피고인과 어울리려고 하지 않는 것 같았다. 식사시간에 피고인이 혼자 식사하고 주변 소초원들도 크게 신경쓰지 않는 정도였지 일부러 따돌리거나 무시하는 것은 없었다’고 진술하였고, ④ 공소외 14는 ‘근무조에 따라 밥 먹을 시간이 정해져 있는데, 제가 피고인과 같이 근무를 많이 섰는데 피고인이 근무 전에 밥을 안 먹고 자고 있으면 제가 피고인을 깨우면서 밥 먹으려 가자고 했으나 피고인이 더 잘 거라면서 안 먹을 때도 있고, 같이 가서 먹을 때도 있었다. 보통 전반야 근무 끝나면 배가 고파서 라면을 끓여서 같이 먹기도 했다’고 진술하였으며, ⑤ 공소외 17은 ‘피고인이 혼자 먹는 것을 자주 봤는데 왜 혼자 먹냐고 물어 보면 그냥 웃었다’고 진술하였고, ⑥ 피고인과 절친했던 공소외 35는 ‘피고인이 워낙 소심하고 개인적인 것을 좋아해서 후임들과 이야기하고 이런 장난을 자주 못 봤고, 소통하는 것이 부족하여 후임들과 사이가 안 좋았던 것 같다’고 진술하였고, 공소외 18은 ‘피고인이 이병, 일병 때는 좀 열심히 했었는데 상병 달고 나서부터 위 선임들이 없어지니까 열외의식도 나타나고 함께 잘 안 하려고 했고, 다른 병사들이 훈련 준비를 할 때 뒤로 빠져서 막대기로 바닥에 낙서를 한 적도 있고, 제설작업에 적극 참여하지도 않았다’고 진술한 점, ⑦ 후임인 공소외 7은 ‘처음부터 친하게 지내고 싶지 않았던 것은 아니고, 처음 전입 당시에는 다른 선임들이 볼 때 피고인과 정말 사이좋게 지냈고, 당시는 훈련이 많아 선임들에게 혼나는 일이 많았는데 피고인이 말을 하지 않는 것이 좋아 불침번 근무를 하면 라면을 주면서 같이 먹거나, 주말에 불교행사를 같이 다니면서 서로 말도 많이 하고 친해졌으나, 2013. 8.경 소대생활관으로 바뀌면서 피고인과 같은 생활관에서 지내게 되었고 같은 해 10.경 피고인이 부분대장을 달고 나서 사소한 것(모포가 삐뚫어졌다, 옷이 좀 각이 안 잡혔다는 등)을 가지고 나에게 욕을 하고 후임이 잘못한다며 후임 똑바로 안 가르치냐고 소리치며 관물대에 있는 옷을 다 꺼내 바닥에 내팽개쳐 버린 일이 있은 다음부터 배신감에 선임 대우를 하기 싫었다’고 진술한 점, ⑧ 피고인 스스로도 ‘군 입대 전에도 밥을 주로 혼자 먹는 편이었다. 항상 공적인 일 외에는 혼자 있을 때가 많았다. 소초(GOP)에서 다른 인원들은 몰려다니면서 친한 애들, 후임들 데리고 다니고 즐겁게 대화를 하는데 아무래도 제가 상대적으로 외롭게 느껴져서 나중에는 몇 번 결식한 적도 있었고, 그 인원들과 안 마주치려고 밥을 일찍 먹거나 늦게 먹기도 했다. 소초(GOP)에 올라가서 계급이 어느 정도 되고 나서 2014. 3. - 4.경 상병 4호봉 때부터 밥을 혼자 먹게 되었다. 분대원들끼리 먹는 걸 좋아 하지 않았다. 공소외 7, 공소외 6 상병이 있어서 저도 눈치가 보여 밥 먹을 때도 항상 불편하고 신경써야 해서 좋아하지 않았다. 중대(FEBA)에서는 단체를 중심으로 이루어졌는데 소초(GOP)에서는 개인 생활이 많이 보장되어서 자유가 많이 보장되었는데 항상 외로웠다. 소외감, 박탈감이다’라고 진술한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 공소외 6은 피고인을 보고 경례를 안 하거나 이름을 부르면 작게 대답하고, 자신의 동기들과 있을 때 피고인이라고 반말로 호칭하기도 하였으며, 초소 근무 설 때마다 피고인을 희화하는 그림을 그린 사실, 공소외 7은 피고인에게 경례를 잘 하지 않았고 피고인으로부터 배신감을 느낀 이후로는 자선의 전달사항 빼고는 말을 잘 걸지 않은 사실 및 피고인 또한 공소외 7과 공소외 6이 같은 분대원이자 맏후임임에도 불구하고 소통을 위한 노력은 하지 아니한 채 공소외 7과 공소외 6을 의식하여 혼자 밥을 먹고 생활하게 되어 항상 외로움과 소외감을 느끼게 된 사실 등은 인정되나, 소초 내 사실상 최선임인 피고인이 솔선수범과 희생으로 후임병들을 잘 이끌려는 노력을 하지 않은 채 오랜 근무시간에도 불구하고 말을 거의 하지 않는 등 소통을 위한 노력을 하지 않았음은 물론 오히려 선임임을 내세워 작업이나 근무 등에서 열외하려고 하고, 단체생활보다는 혼자 생활하려는 태도를 보이며 후임병들에게 전혀 신경을 쓰지 않아 후임병들과는 특별한 친소관계가 없이 생활하였던 것으로 보이고, 다만 후임병들 중 맏후임인 공소외 7, 공소외 6은 피고인으로부터 심한 질책을 당한 이후로는 최선임인 피고인에게 직접적으로 반항하거나 별명을 부르는 등 무시할 수는 없었지만 피고인이 불러도 못 들은 척 하거나 못 본 척 하고 경례를 하지 않는 등의 방법으로 피고인에게 소극적으로 대항하여 피고인과 서로 서먹서먹한 정도의 갈등관계에 있었던 것으로 보이는바, 이를 두고 후임들 전체가 집단적으로 피고인을 따돌렸다거나 무시했다고 주장하는 것은 피고인의 일방적인 주장에 불과한 것으로 보이므로 받아들일 수 없다.

(3) Determination as to the defendant's assertion on a separate name

피고인은 소초원들이 별명을 부르며 자신을 무시하는 행위는 정신적 살인 또는 인격 모욕에 해당하고, 그것이 이 사건 범행의 동기에 영향을 미쳤다고 주장하므로 살피건대, ① 피고인은 자신에게 별명을 부른 사람은 소초원들 중 공소외 25(슬라임, 할배, 이무도비누스), 공소외 36(슬라임), 공소외 9(할배, 노인, 라면전사), 공소외 14(슬라임, 이무도비누스), 공소외 17(슬라임), 공소외 15(슬라임, 할배, 노인), 공소외 16(슬라임, 할배, 이무도비누스) 등이고, 공소외 18과 공소외 19도 동기여서 불렀던 것 같은데 횟수가 3-4회로 적었고 장난 같아서 기분이 나쁘지 않았으며, 노인과 할배는 2014. 2.경, 라면전사는 2014. 4.경 내지 5.경 공소외 9가 각각 붙인 별명이고, 라면 전사는 공소외 9와 공소외 21 외에는 부른 사람이 없고, 슬라임은 2014. 3.경 공소외 17이 붙인 별명이며, 피고인이 공소외 16과 싸운 2014. 5. 10. 이후 다른 사람들도 슬라임이라는 별명을 부르지 않았고, 이무도비누스는 중대(FEBA)에서 공소외 37이 붙인 것인데 2014. 5. 10. 이후 공소외 14가 갑자기 부르기 시작했다고 진술 한 점, ② 이무도비누스라는 별명은 비하하는 의미는 없다고 생각하며, 자신을 깔보고 무시해서 부른다고 생각했기 때문에 모욕하는 것 같다는 취지로 진술한 점, ③ 공소외 25가 슬라임이나 이무도비누스라고 부를 때 처음에는 악의적인 것은 없었고 장난치듯이 다른 애들에게 하는 것처럼 불렀다고 생각하여 기분이 나쁘지 않았으나 점점 심해졌는데 언제부터인지 모르지만 기분이 나쁘게 되었다고 진술한 점, ④ 피고인은 소초원들이 별명을 부를 때 공소외 16과 싸웠을 때를 제외하고는 다른 사람들에게 하지 말라고 표현한 적이 없다고 진술한 점, ⑤ 피고인도 공소외 10에게 ‘꼬맹이’, 공소외 19에게는 ‘공소외 19맘’이라고 불렀는데, 공소외 10의 경우는 모욕감을 느꼈을 것이나, 공소외 19는 자신과 친해서 모욕감을 느끼지 않았을 것 같다고 진술한 점 및 피고인도 동기인 공소외 14에게 ‘주둥아, 풍신’, 공소외 17에게 ‘쓰레기’ 등으로 별명을 부른 점, ⑥ 별명에 담긴 의미보다 부르는 사람과 듣는 사람의 친밀도에 따라서 별명을 불렀을 때 모욕감을 느끼는지 여부가 달라진다고 생각하며 실제로 공소외 18이 자신에게 이무도비누스라고 불렀지만 기분이 나쁘지 않았다고 진술한 점, ⑦ 피고인의 동기인 공소외 17은 작업할 때 힘쓰는 것을 잘못하면 “근력이 슬라임이냐”라고 말하기도 하였고, 수시로 슬라임이라고 불렀는데, 이에 대해 피고인은 아무런 반응이 없을 때도 있었으나 대부분 환하게 웃었다고 진술하였고, 또한 피고인의 성격에 대해 ‘마음속에 담아 놨던 말은 표출을 전혀 하지 않았고, 자신이 힘드냐고 물어봐도 괜찮다는 말만 했다’고 하면서도, 한편으로 ‘화가 나거나 기쁘거나 자기 감정을 잘 추스르지 못하는 것 같다’고 진술하기도 한 점, ⑧ 2014. 6. 1. 1분대에 전입한 공소외 11은 별명을 부르는 소초원을 본 적이 없다고 진술한 점 등을 종합하여 보면, 피고인의 별명을 부른 소초원은 일부 간부와 병사들이었고, 2014. 5. 10. 이후에는 ‘슬라임’이라는 별명을 부르지 않게 되는 등 별명을 부른 인원이나 횟수가 더욱 줄어들었을 것으로 보이며, 피고인의 진술에 의하더라도 별명 자체에는 비하하는 의미는 없고 깔보고 무시해서 부르는 경우에 모욕이라고 하더라도 병영이나 일상생활에서 동료들 사이에 흔히 별명을 부르는 행위에 대하여 어느 순간 인격모독 행위로서 정신적 살인행위와 동등하다고 평가하였다는 피고인의 진술 및 그럼에도 그런 행위를 제지하지 않고 마음속에 쌓아두기만 했다는 것은 이해하기 어렵고, 2014. 5. 10. 이후 사건 당일에 이르러 별명 부르는 행위 등이 마음속에 축적되어 있다가 갑자기 감정이 폭발하여 이 사건 범행의 동기에 영향을 미쳤다는 피고인의 주장은 받아들이기 어렵다.

(4) Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion on the patrol log of ○-△△△○○○○○, and the patrol log of the patrol log

○○-△초소 확인점 순찰일지에 있는 그림판이 범행 촉발 요인이 되었고, 이로 인해 상상살인 또는 감정을 통제할 수 없는 심리상태에서 범행을 결심하게 되었다는 피고인의 주장에 대해 살펴보면, 피고인은 ‘초소에서 그림을 처음 발견했을 때 그림 하나로 그려져있어 그냥 지웠고, 그 다음부터는 그림이 있다는 것을 알고 있으면서 외면하고 자세히 보지 않았으나, 그날 그림과 글(라면 먹는 모습, 탈모나 비쩍 마르고 뱃살이 나온 우스꽝스럽고 해학적인 모습, 운동하거나 패션 잡지를 보는 모습, 이름 군번 종교를 써놓기도 하고 자신을 가리키는 그림을 그리면서 “애 잘 생겼음”이라고 반어법을 쓴 글, 병신을 뜻하는 ㅂㅅ 등)을 보고 나서 자신에 대한 사람들의 생각이나 느낌을 알 수 있었고 자신의 그림 주변에 여러 개의 바라보는 표정이나 눈동자를 그려놓는 것도 평소 일상적인 행동을 지켜보고 감시하고 있다는 인상을 받고 엄청난 충격을 받았다’고 주장한다.

그러나 그림이나 글의 내용이 피고인을 형상화하는 신체적 특정이나 평소 습관을 나타냄으로써 누구나 피고인인지를 비교적 쉽게 알 수 있고 모욕적인 표현을 사용하고 있었다고 하더라도, 그와 같은 그림이나 글들은 순찰일지 한 면에 가득 그려진 그림의 일부에 불과하고, 피고인 외에도 다른 병사들을 나타내는 형상들도 다수 그려져 있다는 점, 캐릭터 그림은 사람의 신체적 특징을 일부 희화하거나 과장하여 표현하는 것을 그 특징으로 하는 점, 하나의 그림 주위로 여러 명이 쳐다보는 눈이 그려져 있는 그림을 보고 이를 모든 소초원이 자신을 감시하고 있다고 보는 것은 지나치게 주관적인 판단으로 보인다는 점을 종합하면, 피고인이 자신을 희화한 그림들로 인해 모욕감을 느꼈다거나 다소 기분이 나빴다고 하더라도 단순히 그와 같은 그림의 내용만으로 살인의 범행을 결심할 만큼 충격을 주었다는 피고인의 주장은 선뜻 납득하기 어렵다.

(1) In addition, the Defendant appeared to have been 5 times in the first instance trial, and Nonindicted 2 directly viewed that he had been engaged in “the 10th day of June,” and that he had been aware of the existence of his character other than his picture or writing from 14th day before 20th day, and that he had been able to see that he had been 1 to 4th day, and that he had been able to 5th day after 2nd day of his initial statement, and that he had been 1 to 4th day after 2nd day of his initial statement, and that he had been 5th day after 4th day of his initial statement, and that he had been 4th day after 2nd day of his initial statement, it was difficult for the Defendant to take measures to 5th day of his initial statement, and that he had been 14th day after 2nd day of his initial statement.”

(5) Sub-committee

Thus, as the defendant himself acknowledged, it appears that there was no collective bullying led by the executives, and the act of Non-Indicted 25, which is acknowledged by the defendant among the contents asserted by him, is sufficient to see that the act of Non-Indicted 25, which is acknowledged as a part of the defendant's activities, is different from his work or portrait, and the remainder is not recognized. The motive soldiers and the defendant are recognized as having a mutual string, but such act cannot be regarded as solely a character insult or mental harassment against the defendant, and the fact that there was conflict with Non-Indicted 7 and Non-Indicted 6 among the latter soldiers is recognized, and the attitude of the latter soldiers is not a problem. However, this cannot be viewed as being caused by the defendant's attitude of disregarding the post-appointed disease without fulfilling his role as a ordinary volunteer soldier, and it cannot be viewed that the defendant was neglected to bullying from the latter soldiers, and it is difficult to see that the defendant's rash the existence of his own rash and the process of his rashing it on the day, even if he did not have been able.

4) The process of committing the crime

(1) 피고인은 군 입대 후 자신이 지켜본 ○○소초는 실제 상황이 발생하더라도 소초 막사에 있는 간부나 병사 등이 신속히 상황파악을 하지 못할 것이고, 설령 상황파악을 하더라도 소초 막사에 있는 총기함에서 총기를 꺼내고 간이탄약고에서 실탄을 꺼내기 위해서는 중대에 보고하여야 하는데 보고에는 시간이 오래 걸릴 것이기 때문에 소초 막사에 있는 소초원들은 무장할 수가 없어 자신에게 위협이 되지 않는다고 생각하였고, 또한 피고인은 무장한 소초원들 중 교통통제소에서 멀리 떨어진 ○○-◈초소에 있던 전반야 근무자인 일병 공소외 27, 이병 공소외 31은 계급이 낮기 때문에 상황에 제대로 대처하지 못할 것이며, 교통통제소와 가까운 ○○-□초소에 있던 전반야 근무자인 이병 공소외 11의 경우 전입 온지 얼마 되지 않아 실탄을 지급받지 않았고, 공소외 7은 평소 근무 태도에 비추어 제대로 대응을 하지 못할 것이기 때문에 전반야 초소 근무자들은 자신에게 위협이 되지 않고, 따라서 교통통제소에 있는 무장한 공소외 1, 공소외 8, 공소외 15, 공소외 38, 공소외 39, 공소외 40, 공소외 5를 제압하기만 한다면 소초원들을 전부 살해하려는 자신의 범행을 실현할 수 있다는 판단을 하고 그에 따라 먼저 교통통제소에서 휴식을 취하고 있던 자신의 상관과 동료 병사들에게 수류탄을 던져 범행을 개시하였는바, 자신의 범행 목표를 달성하기 위해 예상되는 위험요소를 고려한 효과적인 공격 방법과 공격 대상을 선정하는 치밀함과 결심한 바를 주저함 없이 곧바로 실행에 옮기는 냉철함 그리고 불과 10분 전까지만 해도 함께 동고동락하던 무방비 상태의 전우들을 향해 살상력과 파괴력이 큰 수류탄을 던지는 냉혹함을 보여 주었다.

(2) The Defendant: (a) removed the brupt of the brush in possession of the brupt after the movement control office tent; (b) removed the stith pumps from it; (c) removed the safety pin and safety cleans from the port of the battle in which the brush was originally installed; and (d) removed the safety pins and safety cleans from the brush; and (c) confirmed that the brut has come away from Nonindicted 38 of the brush in which the victims were gathered; (d) removed the brut in front of the brut in which the brut had the brut; and (e) removed the brut gun to the extent that the brut was carried out by the body below the brush; and (e) removed the brut gun from the brut gun to the extent that the brut can have been separated into the brut gun at the site of the brush after the explosion of the b, and then removedd the 15 meters.

(3) The Defendant: (a) launched 11 ball cartridges that had fleded in the direction of the beginning of the front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 6, she was killed in the middle of Nonindicted Party 1; (b) discovered Nonindicted Party 1’s daily life room Nonindicted Party 15 and Nonindicted Party 40; and (c) then launched two ball cartridges near the point where the Defendant she saw away from the front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 6, and tried to prevent the death of Nonindicted Party 6 from flying off the front time of the front time of the death; and (d) discovered Nonindicted Party 3’s front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 4’s front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 6, the Defendant continued to look at the victim’s front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 5’s front time of the front time of the death; and (d) discovered Nonindicted Party 4’s front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 6’s front time of the front time of the front time of the death of Nonindicted Party 3’s front time of the front time of the death.

(4) After that, the Defendant: (a) had been thought to have contracted a small gun and moved back to a shot door again; (b) had not been separated from the middle gun that had been combined with the above K-2 gun; (c) but there was no further need to cope with the shot light, the Defendant found Nonindicted 13 who had yet to throw off the shot light with the front shot light, which was then thrown away from the front shot light; and (d) had launched the shot light and launched the shot light, but caused injury, again, the Defendant thought that there was any shot light around the shot light, which would have been moving to the front direction of the shot light; (b) had been able to detect the shot light in response to the death of the shot light on the front shot light, which would have been able to prevent the death of the shot light and the front shot light from spreading the shot light by means of the entrance to the right side of life.

5) The attitude after committing the crime

피고인은 범행 후 목적지를 간성으로 정하여 동쪽으로 이동하기로 마음먹고, 피고인은 평소 훈련 경험에 비추어 볼 때 상황전파가 제대로 이루어지지 않는 경우가 많기 때문에 수색하는 병력이 본인을 알아보지 못할 것이 뻔해서 당당히 대처하면 걸리지 않으리라는 확신이 있었기 때문에 도주하던 중 약 6번 가량 수색대를 마주치면서도 제♤♤연대 초병이라고 둘러대고 오히려 무슨 훈련을 하느냐고 반문하는가 하면, 태연하게 경례를 붙이고 간부지시로 피아식별띠를 가지러 가는 것처럼 대답하며 상황을 모면하는 한편, 도주 중의 발자국 흔적 등을 보고 수색작전이 산중턱까지는 일반 부대들이, 중턱에는 수색대나 특공대가 포진하고 있을 것으로 예상하고 이를 피하기 위해 산 능선을 이동경로로 선택하고 자신의 발자국을 낙엽 등으로 지우는 등 태연하고 치밀한 도주행각을 벌였다.

피고인은 2014. 6. 23. 14:55경 강원 고성군 ◁◁콘도 주변에서 수색대와 대치하던 중 투항 권유에도 불구하고 자신의 범죄에 대한 후회와 반성보다 희생자들에 대한 분노의 감정을 드러내는 내용의 메모를 작성한 후 평생 감옥에 가기는 싫다며 자살을 시도하였는바, 처벌에 대한 두려움을 자살을 함으로써 회피하고자 하는 태도를 보였다.

6) Whether the defendant was against the defendant

The defendant made a confession from an investigative agency to the court of the original trial and the court of the trial, and shows his attitude of misunderstanding his own mistake. However, there are considerable doubt about whether the defendant is against the truth.

First of all, the Defendant stated that it was close to the 9th investigation of the military police officer that he did not have a direct mind to some extent, but it was difficult to fully understand the fact that there was a haloged victim. However, it was difficult to say that there was a very little slick and external slick, and that there was no other reason for this result until there was an 10 years old situation, and that there was no other reason to believe that there was no other reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to 10 years old and no other reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was no reason to believe that there was a 4-month and pain of the victims.

Next, the defendant did not directly indicate any private crime against the victims and their bereaved family members after being arrested until the appellate court, and did not seek to agree.

In addition, the appellate court made a vindication to the purport that it did not submit a written reply until the third trial date, and the letter of apology and reply submitted on the fourth trial date showed the attitude that the victims and their bereaved family members have committed the crime of deception. In other words, the victims who have made a sacrifice due to the structural imbalance and inconsistency between this society and the military, and the attitude that this society and the military should be subject to criticism was presented. Furthermore, it was difficult to understand that they were to become the original victims for all those suffering from such misappropriation and inconsistency.

In full view of the above circumstances, there is a strong doubt as to not only the soldiers who have been dedicated to the defense of the national territory, but also the victims who have made a sacrifice and their bereaved families, due to the appraisal by the labor union, which was struted from the awareness of inherent damage, rather than having the mind to commit a serious crime against the victims and their bereaved families.

7) likelihood of reoffending

The defendant was suffering from severe physical and mental harassment at the time of the third year of middle school due to resistant and mental character, and even though she did not express it even though her pain was serious, she was suffering. At the second year of high school, she was thought that she was forced to kill her child from middle school again from the same reflector, and her mind that she was forced to kill her child from middle school, and she was not able to bring the defendant's her mind to school, and the crime of this case also was committed at the time of middle school and high school, which was inherent in her mind to report the bullying to her, and the bullying at the time of middle school and high school, which was inherent in her mind, and the bullying at the time after entering the military, and the defendant seems to have suffered serious physical and mental pain at all times.

In addition, according to the notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the preparation of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center against the defendant, the defendant is socially isolated to avoid a friendly relationship, have little close friendship, lack of social support resources, and not experience inconvenience in personal relations, and the tendency to continuously experience and express the trauma case in the past, experience and expression of the depression in physical form, and it shows the form of decentralization and redly developed by considering the fact-finding rather than actively coping with the target or situation of the damage to himself, and the overall method of treating the personality orientation falls under the personality disorder of a specific impossible, and it is judged that there is no special character, and that the treatment method for such personality orientation cannot expect a big effect through mental diagnosis such as medication and mental therapy.

In full view of this, the inherent decentralization and hostile ties caused by the defendant's personality inclinations are likely to not escape again even if the defendant re-returns to society, and there is no risk of recidivism.

C. Determination of sentencing against the Defendant

The crime of this case is not only a serious gap in national security, but also a serious compromise, pain, and great strest to the victims, their bereaved family members, and the same soldiers living together with each other, who were dedicated to the duty of national defense, in the beginning of the lowest charging site where the defendant was able to commit the crime of this case in North Korea and the military base, and were able to escape from the military, causing a serious gap in national security, resulting in a reliance on the military and the morale of the military. Furthermore, the victims and their bereaved family members, and the same soldiers living together with each other, who were able to lead their lives, were suffering from a shock, suffering, and serious pain.

The Defendant, even though there was no collective bullying or harassment, did not cause much pain to prevent murder. However, the Defendant had already been aware of the existence and increase of the picture that scambling himself on the back of the patrol log when working at the beginning of the police station. On the day of the instant case, the Defendant reported the picture on the day of the instant case, and was scambling for all bullyings after entering the previous middle, middle, and high school, and military forces, and was scam to kill all scams. Therefore, even though there was no obvious motive to take into account the Defendant in the instant crime, the Defendant did not cause serious scambling to murder all scams even though it could not find out any significant motive to scambling the Defendant in the instant crime. Moreover, the Defendant, even though the Defendant did not have any scambling or multiple scambling any harm to a specific person, did not neglect the Defendant’s attitude to scambling the entire target of murder or scambling.

After trying to commit the crime, the Defendant determined the method of attack, the object and order of priority by taking into account the possibility of responding to the beginning of the crime, and the response methods and time, and showed the progress of the commission of the crime, and shown that he did not have any string, interview, and cooling with respect to the commission during the commission of the crime. After working, he was frightd and boomed with heavy strings that could lead to a large number of times during the break-out in the state of flood, and she was shot and shotd with them when she fleded, and she was shotly killed and shoted for them, and even she was shoted from the 5-6m-meter distance from the birth of the king to the king who was shot in English, as well as when she was at his own position to the fluor who was frighted with the injury, it should be an ordinary rheculous and sturized body in terms of society.

Nevertheless, the defendant did not express his/her intent to commit a serious crime against the victims and their bereaved family members. However, the defendant did not express his/her intention to commit a serious crime against the victims and their bereaved family members in the first instance and took an attitude that they seem to reflect. However, it still expresses his/her awareness that he/she had a mind that he/she had a mind that the victims and their family members who suffered unexpectedly from a third party's perspective are able to understand and criticize the society and the military that he/she acquired through contradictions and irregularities, and that he/she is dissatisfied with such attitude of the defendant's family members are dissatisfied with the declaration of the highest legal punishment against the defendant who does not have the end of the serious anti-influence and the crime of death.

As such, the criminal act of a defendant belongs to the most serious type in which the crime of murder is anticipated under the Criminal Act and the Military Criminal Act, and our law prescribes the statutory punishment for the most serious type of murder as death penalty. Although the defendant has no yet age and has no penal power, it is not appropriate to give the defendant an opportunity to improve and teach the defendant who is difficult to view that the defendant is guilty due to a truth, giving him/her an opportunity to improve and teach the truth is inappropriate, taking into comprehensive account the suffering and sense of the victim who is believed and believed to be above all, the impulse of the victim, the balance between the crime and the punishment committed, the balance between the crime and the punishment committed, and the necessity of general prevention to prevent a similar type of crime, etc. Therefore, the sentence of sentence of the court below is too unreasonable. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 430 (1) of the Military Court Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Colonel-Colonel (Presiding Judge) of the Colonel-Colonel of the Military Court

1) While Nonindicted 3 was affiliated with 4 minutes, Nonindicted 3 was sent from the first-time living room to the first-time living room.

2) At the beginning of the case, Nonindicted Party 7, Nonindicted Party 6, and Nonindicted Party 3, etc., who were working together with the Defendant, reported to the lower court that they were wrong. For example, the lower court informed Nonindicted Party 2 of the fact that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were able to sleep or remove the Defendant from the beginning, and that Nonindicted Party 2 was off the Defendant’s daily life, including Nonindicted Party 7 and Nonindicted Party 4, and that Nonindicted Party 1 and Nonindicted Party 2 were released from the Defendant’s office on the same day (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 24”) and that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 2 was released from the Defendant’s office, including Nonindicted Party 7 and Nonindicted Party 6’s daily life, and that Nonindicted Party 4 and Nonindicted Party 2 was released from the Defendant’s office on the same day (hereinafter “Nonindicted Party 3 and Nonindicted Party 6’s daily life,” and that the Defendant was released from the Defendant’s office 7 and Nonindicted Party 6’s office.

Note 3) With respect to the meaning of “unclaimed appointment,” Nonindicted 23 stated that, for example, when doing so, it would be difficult to work or see or see any work in a way that would be difficult (Evidence No. 1237 pages).

주4) 후임병들은 ‘피고인이 손가락으로 머리를 툭툭 쳤다, 선임의 몸이 후임의 몸에 닿으면 관등성명을 복창해야 하는 부조리 때문에 20번이 넘게 관등성명을 대야했다, 피고인이 후임들을 단체로 집합시켜 제대로 하지 못한다며 욕설을 하며 질책을 했으면서도 GOP에 올라 와서는 병장이라고 작업이나 힘든 일에는 모두 빠지려고 들어서 선임대우를 하고 싶지 않았다(공소외 6)’, ‘처음에는 피고인과 사이가 좋았으나 피고인이 부분대장이 되면서 모포가 삐뚤어졌다고 욕설을 하고 후임들 관리를 제대로 못한다는 이유로 멱살을 잡고 관물대에 있는 옷들을 모두 바닥에 내팽개쳐 버린 일이 있은 후부터 배신감에 말도 섞기 싫었다(공소외 7)’, ‘제가 전입오고 나서 관물대 정리가 깔끔하지 못하다거나 군가를 제대로 외우지 못한다는 이유 등으로 공소외 7, 공소외 6 그리고 저를 소대 생활관 옆에 있는 자판기 쪽으로 데려간 후 씨발새끼 등의 욕설을 섞어가며 질책을 했다. 한번은 피고인에게 멱살까지 잡혔다. 그래도 피고인과 그렇게 사이가 나쁜 편은 아니었는데, 제가 지원분대로 갈 때도 피고인이 나를 버리고 가느냐면서 아쉬워했었고, GOP 와서는 피고인이 제 부산 말투를 따라하면서 제 이름을 부르는 등 웃고 대화한 적도 많았다(공소외 24)’, ‘피고인이 근무 나가기 전에 ‘고생하십시오’라고 하면 저에게 ‘나보고 고생하라고, 그래 고생할게’라거나 근무 마치고 복귀해서 ‘고생하셨습니다’고 하면 ‘니가 고생하라고 해서 고생하고 왔다’는 식으로 장난스레 대화한 기억이 난다(공소외 31)’고 각 진술하였다.

(5) According to the interview and observation records, the Defendant had an interview with Nonindicted 25 lieutenants on April 3, 2014 (at least, there are no difficulties and fyings with the members of the sub-councils), 5.17 (at least, there are no difficulties and suggestions, and without distance strings) and 6.15 (at least, there are many fying parts of the area where operations are going through without force, but they are serving with enjoyable mind).