Punishment of a person who kills another person to destroy evidence and takes spawn on the part of the person's money.

If the purpose of murdering a victim is to destroy evidence for other crimes and is not used as a means of taking property rights, the crime of murder is committed, and the crime of larceny is committed in cash in the face of the dead victim's face money, and it cannot be viewed that the crime of larceny is committed, and the crime of robbery is committed.

Articles 338, 250, and 329 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court of the first instance (Seoul High Court Decision 72 Gohap2)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by death.

The seized cash 29,500 won (No. 9.10 of the No. 9.10 of the certificate) and one nives of the nives (No. 11 of the certificate) shall be returned to the deceased non-indicted 1’s heir.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel and the defendant is only the fact that the victim non-indicted 2 was killed at the end of the trial without any justifiable reason and 29,500 won in cash possessed by that person. However, the court below found that the defendant, as a doctor of each robbery, killed the non-indicted 2 and other non-indicted 1, 300 won in cash at the place of killing the non-indicted 1, 200, and kills the non-indicted 3 for the purpose of destroying the evidence, thereby making a mistake of facts that affected the conclusion of the judgment.

First of all, according to the judgment of the court below as to the second facts in the original trial ex officio, the court below held that, as a doctor of robbery, the defendant induced the victim non-indicted 2 to the back of 167 meters away from his house to the back of the back of the back of 167 meters, and murdered the victim's non-indicted 2 at approximately KRW 190 meters away from the place of murder, and was surging down the skin and soil in which the defendant used at the time of murder, and the defendant was surged, and the defendant was surging the victim's clothes in which he was in his house, because the mother of non-indicted 2 showed Non-indicted 1's face when he was sent from his house to his house, the defendant was guilty of the defendant's crime unless the non-indicted 1 was killed, and the defendant caused Non-indicted 2 to kill Non-indicted 1 at his house and then caused the death of Non-indicted 39 meters from his house and then caused the death of the defendant 300.

However, the defendant's purpose of killing the non-indicted 1 is to destroy and destroy the same for the purpose of destroying the evidence, such as the above fact-finding, and the defendant's act of killing the non-indicted 1 among the so-called so-called so-called "non-indicted 1" should be punished by larceny, and the defendant's act of killing the non-indicted 1 should be punished by larceny. Thus, it is obvious that the court below applied the law on the crime of robbery to the so-called "the crime of robbery" and applied the law to the so-called "the crime of robbery" as the crime of robbery. Thus, the judgment of the court below is omitted in this respect, and the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and it is so decided as follows.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of the defendant acknowledged as a member of the party and the summary of the evidence are as follows: the defendant's criminal facts and the summary of the evidence are as follows: "In the statement of the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, the 3rd to 9th 10th 10th , "the 4th 4th 4th 14th , "the 5th 14th ," "the 5th 7th 7th 8th ," "the 5th , the 4th , the 5th 7th , the 5th 7th 8th ," changed "the 3th , the 5th , the 5th , the 5th 2nd , the 6th 6th , and 3th , the 4th 6th , the 5th 6th , the 5th 2nd 6th , the 4th 5th , and the 4th 3th 9th , the 6th 9th , the 3th 9th , respectively".

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

Article 338 of the Criminal Act as to the murder of robbery No. 1 in the judgment of the defendant, and Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the murder of Non-Indicted 1 in the judgment of the court. Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act as to the murder of Non-Indicted 3 in the judgment of the court below, and Article 329 of the Criminal Act as to the murder of Non-Indicted 1 in the judgment of the court below. Since each crime of robbery is concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since the crime of robbery and murder of Non-Indicted 1 in the judgment of the court below is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the method and result of each crime of robbery are very strong and serious as to the crime of robbery and murder of non-Indicted 1 in the judgment of the court below, and Article 38 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act and Article 50 of the same Act are clear that the defendant's death penalty is to be returned to the victim (Article 190 (1) 10).3).

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judge Regular (Presiding Judge) Lee Jin-jin-gu