beta
Text
Defendant
In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not kill or abandon the victim’s body. Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of all the charges of murder and abandonment of the body solely with no credibility or doubtful indirect evidence and circumstances. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) In so doing, it is unreasonable that the lower court ordered the Defendant to attach a location tracking electronic device, even though the illegality of the attachment order of the location tracking device does not pose a risk of recidivism.
3) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (30 years of imprisonment with prison labor and the attachment of an electronic tracking device) is too unreasonable. B. The Prosecutor’s lower court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for a probation order, but appears to have appealed only with respect to the Defendant’s case. (In so doing, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.)
2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts
A. In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court determined that all of the Defendant’s murder and abandonment of the dead body was guilty.
1) On June 1, 2013, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the victim to sell KRW 200,000,000 to KRW 130,000,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) out of the F Return 10,040, Incheon, Incheon, the Defendant owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”); even if the Defendant was paid the sum of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from the down payment and intermediate payment, the Defendant failed to cancel the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the name of the S Co., Ltd. established on the instant land; as the down payment and intermediate payment were not refunded, the victim filed a lawsuit claiming the return of the down payment, etc. against the Defendant; and on May 1, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the victim on May 1, 2014.