2017Do6914 A. Murder

(b) Child welfare violations (Child Abuse);

(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes;

Rape)

(d) Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof;

(Rape) Blood Rape)

1. (a) A;

2. (c) d. B

Defendants

C Law Firm (for Defendant A)

Attorney BN, D

Attorney BP (National Ship for Defendant B)

Seoul High Court Decision 2016No3140, 2016 Jeonno210 (Joint) decided April 21, 2017

Judgment

July 11, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly selected by the lower court, the lower court, based on its reasoning, committed murder among the facts charged against Defendant A and the facts charged in the instant case on October 2014.

20. The determination that a person guilty of violating the Child Welfare Act (child abuse) is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the intention of murder and violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abuse).

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found Defendant B guilty of all of the facts charged in this case (excluding the portion not guilty of the lower judgment) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err

In addition, pursuant to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. As such, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on Defendant B, the argument that the amount of punishment is unreasonable cannot be

3. Conclusion

All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Jae-han

Justices Kim So-young

Justices Lee Dong-won