2014No89 Injury (the name of a recognized crime: Injury, assault)

1. A;

2. B

Defendants and Prosecutor (Objection to all of the Defendants)

Preliminary(s)(s) , reciting(s) and book purification(s)

Law Firm C (For all the defendants)

Attorney in charge D, F, AG, E, G, H

Incheon District Court Decision 2013Gohap490 Decided December 20, 2013

June 13, 2014

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) A prosecutor;

1) misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A) During the process of assaulting and injuring the victimJ, the Defendants could have predicted the circumstance that the victim would die by leaving heavy water to the victim.

B) Furthermore, there was a causal link between the Defendants’ assault and injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim, and the Defendants could have predicted that the victim would die due to their assault and injury.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants (two years of imprisonment for the Defendants A, and eight months of imprisonment for the Defendants B) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

B. Defendant A

(1) misunderstanding of facts

around March 2013, there was no fact that the Defendant intended to drink stuff to the victim in the studio toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant B (unfair form of punishment)

The sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination (part of changes in indictment);

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the Prosecutor is examined as ex officio. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Prosecutor added a Belgium around May 2013, and around June 15, 2013, a 's head on the part which inflicted an injury upon each victim by using golf bonds.' From June 25, 2013 to June 15:35, 2013, during the above studio, the Defendant believed the above horses of the Defendants and did not properly study the victim, and the victim was able to see that the victim was able to see the above 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the 3rd of the son.

However, even if there are such reasons for reversal of facts as above, Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and even though the indictment was partially changed, the prosecutor’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is still meaningful, it should be examined below in light of the changed facts charged in the trial and the part that the prosecutor tried to assert through

3. Determination

A. Judgment on the prosecutor's misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

1) Whether the Defendants could have predicted that the Defendants would cause serious water death in the course of assaulting and injuring the victim;

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendants could have predicted the death of the victim by causing severe water to the victim during the process of assaulting and injuring the victim.

(1) At the time I left the victim with heavy water, the Defendants did not appear at the scene, and the Defendants knew that only after half the water was cut off from the victim, the Defendant did so with heavy water.

(2) At the court of the court below, I stated that "no fact was directed by the defendant that he or the defendants caused hot water," and that "the defendant or the defendants did not contain hot water to the victim prior to the instant case. There was no relation with the defendants as I himself, and that the victim's face was left for the first time on June 26, 2013."

(3) Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant A on June 6, 2013, 24, without having the victim study properly, and without having the Defendants hear the horses well, that coods hospitalized in the hospital by “0” due to the coods’ failure to hear the horses. However, the text message does not include the content that coods the victim or caused heavy water to the victim.

(4) Around June 27, 2013, the Defendants were willing to take the victim to the hospital. However, on the grounds that the Defendants did not need to take the victim to the hospital, I stated in the lower court’s court and the investigative agency that the Defendants did not take the victim to the hospital.

(5) The Defendants and the Defendants stated that “The Defendants did not want to have the victim undergo the examination to the extent that they did not want to undergo the examination announcement. The Defendants stated in the court below that “The Defendants did not have been at the time of the victim without any justifiable reason, and that the Defendants were at the time of the victim in relation to the official book.”

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable even if the following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the evidence presented above, are observed.

(1) Whether Defendant A instructed Defendant A to put the victim into water.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to believe that the statement in the first instance court is difficult, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is sufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant A directed the victim I to twel a hot water, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The only evidence of the facts charged in this case changed to the effect that Defendant A instructed the victim to care for hot water is outside the statement in the court of the first instance. In light of the following circumstances, the above statement in I is doubtful of credibility.

① As to the reasons in which I may lring a hot water to the victim, the investigative agency and the lower court consistently made a statement to the effect that “the victim does not listen to it, and thus, she does not make any mention that Defendant A instructed the victim to incur water to the victim.” On December 20, 2013, Incheon District Court (Case No. 2013Gohap48) sentenced Defendant A to seven years of imprisonment due to the crime of bodily injury and death, and appealed on December 20, 2013, and appealed the first instance court’s decision to the effect that “I shall be present as a witness during the appellate court’s trial (No. 20148, Jun. 25, 2013 and Jun. 26, 2013, I instructed the victim to bring water to the victim.”

② As to the developments leading up to which I selected hot water as a means of injury to the victim, I stated in the court of the court of the court below that “at the time of the court of the court of the court below stated that “the water was cut out because it was hot water,” but ii) in the court of the court of the court of the court of the court of the court, the statement to the effect that “the Defendant A gave rise to water by ordering the Defendant A to be a water quality.”

③ With regard to the process of liting the victim's water from the trial, I made a statement to the effect that "When a witness sends a word that explains the situation to "O" around June 25, 2013 and around June 26, 2013, Defendant A made a phone call from Defendant A with a sign of limitation on the sender, Defendant A made an entry into water, and Defendant A instructed him to bring the water at the time of hiting, and 4) "the water was twice twice. The victim did not have any response, and the victim did not have any response, the victim instructed the victim to put the water from the floor, and told the following behavior."

Meanwhile, in light of the fact that I stated in the court below's court that he laid hot water at night on June 25, 2013, 7) Defendant B also stated to the same effect in the investigative agency, and 8) around 23:33 of the same day, Defendant B sent to Defendant B a letter to the effect that Defendant B is "JNra", it is presumed that I was between 18:0 and 23:33 as the time when I puts heavy water to the victim on June 25, 2013.

Furthermore, at around 26: 23:00 on June 26, 2013, Defendant A received a text message stating that “I will open to the outside,” and that, therefore, I would like to see that Defendant A received a text message on June 27, 2013, that “I will do not have to go to the outside?” Since then, Defendant A would have to go from I on June 27, 2013 to : 0:28:20 on June 27, 2013; 11) Defendant A received a text message stating that “I will go to the outside: around 0:48:22 on the same day; 12) Defendant A sent the victim a text message on around 20:3:0 on June 26, 2013; 20:3:6:30 on June 27, 2013;

However, according to the CD in which Defendant A’s monetary content was stored, Defendant A and I did not hold a domestic voice call between June 25, 2013. From June 27, 2013 to June 27, 2013, Defendant A and I confirmed that Defendant A and I used a domestic voice call between Defendant A and Defendant I for three minutes and forty-two seconds each time. Even if I saw that the victim had hot water around the estimated time from June 26, 2013 to June 27, 2013, it is questionable as to whether it is possible to see drinking water twice and four minutes in accordance with Defendant A’s instruction within three-minute 40 seconds as stated in Defendant A’s statement.

④ In order to reduce the sentence of sentence of sentence of first instance (seven years of imprisonment) from the appellate case (Seoul High Court 201488) of the principal’s injury resulting in death (Seoul High Court 20148) committed without combining the Defendants’ cases, it is difficult to eliminate the possibility that the victim’s liability for death would have made a false statement to the Defendant A.

(B) Furthermore, on June 27, 2013, at around 01:40, Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant B, stating that “I am dead with the test. I am dead with the test. I am dead with the view of why I am dead. I am dead with the view of why I am dead, and Defendant B again sent a text message to Defendant B, “I am dead with the view of .... am f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. f. d. f. f. f. f. f. f. d. f. f. f. f. f. f. d. f. f. f. f.

(C) Despite the reversal of the above statement by 1 as above, in the case of death or injury inflicted upon I, unlike this case, the argument was concluded and the judgment was rendered on the ground that the application for changes in indictment was not made.

(2) Whether the Defendants were or could have anticipated the Defendants’ act of jointly committing the Defendants’ act of deceiving the victim’s images

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the court below’s duly adopted and examined evidence, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was either an intent of the Defendants to jointly act the victim’s image, or that the Defendants could have anticipated the above act. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(1) Examining the contents of text messages sent and received by the Defendants around June 25, 2013, the Defendants did not know about whether they were assaulted beyond the victim’s degree, but rather, if the Defendants informed the police of the assault and bodily injury of the Defendants, and if the above crime is known to the outside, the Defendants have collected measures to reverse all responsibility to the Defendants. 16)

(2) Defendant A did not visit the house by June 27, 2013, which was later hot water, after June 15, 2013, until June 27, 2013, and it appears that Defendant A was unable to fully recognize the mental condition at the time, the degree of punishment for the victim, etc.

(3) On June 26, 2013, around 15:23, Defendant B confirmed the degree of the victim’s image suffered, and sent to Defendant B a text message stating, “I am bling about how much heavy water is boomed, and not boomed. I am bling off. I am bling. I am bling. I ging that Defendant B was very yellow due to the following acts through the above text message. I ging that this act was an act that the Defendants could not have anticipated.

2) Whether there was a causal link between the Defendants’ assault and injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim, or was foreseeable at the time of the Defendants’ harmful act.

A) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated, the lower court determined that it was insufficient to recognize that the Defendants had a substantial causal relationship between the assault and bodily injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim, and even if proximate causal relationship exists between the harmful act by the Defendants and the death of the victim, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have been predicted that the victim was dead due to the death of the victim

(1) The Defendants’ last injury inflicted upon the victim is based on June 15, 2013, two weeks prior to the date of the victim’s death. As such, when the victim suffered injury as recognized in the facts constituting a crime in the lower judgment, it can be sufficiently recovered if they were to undergo pharmacologic treatment, and it would be extremely low that the victim’s injury would result in death only by the above injury. On June 25, 2013, even if the victim’s injury was in a state before the victim entered a video, it would not be deemed that the victim could no longer receive medical treatment and recovery and it was impossible for the victim to do so.

(2) The appraiser P of the National Scientific Investigation Agency, who conducted the autopsy against the victim, appears to have changed by infections in the victim’s visual image and visual side of not less than 2 degrees wide in the victim’s telegraph via a written autopsy test, and determined that the victim’s sexual chronological cryption and acute cryption appears to have been combined with the victim’s sexual chronological cryposis, including a wide range of organizational loss, the face and head’s left side, the upper part of the face and head, the upper part, and the upper part, and a large number of organizational loss, the spryption, the spryption and the upper part in the telegraph, and the spryption of the victim’s sexual cryposis were accompanied by the victim’s cryposis and cryposis in the face.

(3) The results of the examination of the body of the victim include only the body of the victim after examining only the external appearance of the body of the victim, and include that it is difficult to exclude the possibility of a telegraph infection(s) by video, even in the result of the examination.

(4) On July 24, 2013, the appraiser P made a telephone conversation with the prosecutor on July 24, 2013, and “the images would normally have contributed more to the satisfy on the satisfy. The same shall apply to the case where the opinion is seen by the satisfy, and there is a pulmonary satchosis and acute trafy in the structural examination on the brain satisfy and the pulmonary satisfy. These things are not very serious but very serious progress, and the degree to begin to prevent the satisfy, rather than the situation where the satisfy was infected by the satisfy, rather than the situation where the satisfy was infected by the satisfy.”

(5) In addition, the above P appeared as a witness in this court and stated that "the image that occurred in the victim's body before entering the video would be worse at a higher speed, or that it affected the victim's progress by contributing to the aggravation of the victim's health condition by damage to the victim's death by video, etc., but the direct cause of the victim's death was considered to be video, and the victim's blood transfusion is deemed to be the victim's blood transfusion from image, and even if the victim's body had a wound, the victim did not die in the absence of image, and the victim suffered video loss at 80% of the total body area of the body, and the victim was 2-3 or 4-wayed by the victim's image, and even if the victim was not suffering from the victim's body, this would have caused the victim's death only on the basis of this image."

(6) According to the autopsy report, the victim's face and head's loss of the skin (limited to the highest upper part of the upper part of the victim's body), which is accompanied by the chemical finite salt certificate of 22.0 x 15.0 cm x 15.0 cm x 4.0 x 1.5 cm cm from the upper part of the upper part of the victim's face and head's body, and the lower part of the victim's head and investigation agency did not have any fact that the defendants made a mixed statement when they made a statement.

B) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's above fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are justifiable even if the following circumstances, which were acknowledged by the evidence presented above, are observed.

(1) Whether Defendant A was given the victim’s head with his/her marking and golf loan as stated in the facts charged

Defendant A’s defense counsel asserts that Defendant A’s use of labels and golf loans with the victim’s arms and parts, etc., but the victim’s head was not true.

According to the evidence examined above, around May 12, 2013, Defendant B sent a text message to Defendant A with the phrase “the sea was made.” Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant A, Defendant A sent a text message with the phrase “at the time of indoor Belgium,” and Defendant A made a statement to the effect that “I had any possibility of committing a crime by reducing the investigation agency and the court of the court below in order to protect the Defendants who were physically subordinate to the investigation agency and the court of the court below.”

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that Defendant A was at the time of the victim’s head by using labels or golf loans on May 2013 and June 15, 2013 only with the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(A) The only evidence of the changed facts charged by Defendant A is the statement at the court of the first instance. The above statement by Defendant A is not reliable in light of the following circumstances.

① Defendant A consistently stated in an investigative agency and the lower court’s trial to the effect that there was no fact that Defendant A was the victim’s head, and only the victim was the victim’s head, and that Defendant A was the victim’s head, and that Defendant A was the victim’s head, and that Defendant A was the victim’s head. 22)

② In relation to the golf loan type, I consistently stated in the investigative agency and the original trial to the effect that Defendant A had ‘a golf loan with no hedging’, but 23) stated that Defendant A had ‘a golf loan with no hedging’ in the court of the first instance, and reversed the previous statement. However, according to Defendant A’s psychological analysis report No. 4 attached to the A interview Record No. 4 attached to the psychological analysis report with Defendant A prepared as of August 1, 2013, Defendant A stated to the effect that “a golf loan with no hedging was brought to Defendant A” was not only the previous statement of Defendant A, but also the aforementioned statements of Defendant A conflict with the above statements of Defendant A.

③ As to the situation at the time when Defendant A assaulted the victim with golf loans, Defendant A stated in the court of the court below that “I was out of the body of the body of the body, such as arms, etc.” and stated in the court of the court below that “I was out of the body of the body of the body of the body of the victim,” and that Defendant A did not mention in the body of the body of the body of the victim at the time when Defendant A assaulted the victim with Belgium.” In addition, Defendant A stated in the court of the court below that “Defendant A was out of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body, such as arms.” In the court of the court of the court below, Defendant A did not assault the victim with Belgium.”

(B) On June 2, 2013, Defendant B sent a text message to Defendant A, “I, while continuing to cast a brupt, was affected by a brupted judgment,” which is deemed to have a brupted judgment, and that “I, from around May 2013, 2013, shouldered with a brupted judgment.” However, considering the circumstances where I began to enhance the strength of physical punishment against the victim, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that Defendant A solely based on the said text message was when I was the head of the victim around May 2013, as described in the facts charged.

(2) Whether there exists causation between the Defendants’ assault and bodily harm and the death of the victim

(A) The above P stated in the court below that "in the case of the victim, there were infections on the part of the video, and there was a variety of germs, including the green spawn, known to be well infected by the images on the spawn test. The victim's blood transfusions can be deemed to be a spawnosis from video," and that "the body's body's body's body's body's body itself caused the spawnosis cannot be confirmed through autopsy."

(B) In addition, the above P stated in the court of the court below that "I think that I would have not died in absence of image even if I had the upper part of the victim's body," and stated to the effect that "I would have made the most significant contribution to the death of the victim."

(C) The highest level of the victim's upper part is the part of the victim's upper part, focusing on the front side of the victim's face and head, accompanied by a 22.0 x 15.0 cm with a fluorial fluor’s fluorial salt certificate. As seen earlier, the Defendants cannot be found to have inflicted violence or bodily injury on the head part of the victim, and it is difficult to view that the victim died solely on the upper part of the victim's upper part, such as the right arms, fluor, bucks, etc., that the victim would have suffered before entering the video.

(D) In light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view that there is a proximate causal relationship between the Defendants’ assault and bodily injury and the death of the victim.

(3) Whether the Defendants could have predicted the victim’s death at the time of assaulting and injuring the victim

(A) In light of the following: (a) Defendant A appears to have received antibiotics from one’s own hospital and deemed to be drinking to the victim; (c) Defendant B appears to be drinking to the victim with salt medication at the pharmacy; and (d) Defendant A sent a text message to Defendant B on June 20, 2013, stating that “the victim was aware of her antibiotics and her child and her child and her child,” etc., Defendant A may be deemed to have been determined to have been able to easily cure the wife suffered by her act of assault and bodily harm by her act of assault and bodily harm, etc.

(B) In the case of Defendant B, it is natural to view that Defendant B was difficult to expect that the victim would die due to his act of assault and injury, in light of the shape and characteristics of the tool that B used at the time of the victim, and the part where the victim took place.

(C) According to the interview recording records with Defendant A, among the psychological analysis report with Defendant A, Defendant A stated to the effect that Defendant A brought golf loans that he did not have the hedging to I, and that Defendant A was unaware of the death of the victim due to the fact that he did not have the hedging. 35)

(D) In light of the above overall circumstances, the Defendants could not have predicted that the victim could die due to their assault and bodily injury.

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, it is not reasonable to include the prosecutor's grounds for appeal and the changes in indictment.

B. Judgment on Defendant A’s assertion of mistake of fact

1) The judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court determined that Defendant A could have recognized the fact of eating drugs to the victim.

A) In the lower court’s trial, around March 2013, when I, M, and the Defendants were in the room room in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, A stated that there was a fact that she intended to drink the tax item to the victim in the room room room room room room, and the content of the statement is not deemed to be particularly exaggerated.

B) The Defendant B stated that “The victim would have expressed to B that he would return to Gangseo in the department room at the department room at Busan, and Defendant A and I would have fluencing it, and that Defendant A and Defendant A continued to flucing the victim in the vehicle that Defendant A and Defendant A would return to the above flucing room and continued to arrive in the flucing room at the flucing room, and that Defendant A would not flucing the flucing agents at the flucing room, and the victim would have flucing the flucing agents in the flucing room at the flucing room.”

C) According to the contents of Defendant A’s cell phone recording, Defendant A’s cell phone recording refers to the following: (a) Defendant A’s statement that “A’s human nature is trutly tweeted, and A’s human nature is tweeted due to A’s influent family environment; and (b) it conforms with I and M’s above statements.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

Examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the records, the court below's aforementioned fact-finding and judgment are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor.

In addition, the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below are justifiable in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented above.

A) Defendant B stated in the investigative agency that “the sound shown by Defendant A as her scam to the victim while entering the studio toilet,” and Defendant A stated that “I am dynasium and her dynasium and her dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium dynasium

B) At the investigative agency around March 2013, I stated to the effect that “Defendant A taken ice ice ice in the kitchen room room room room and ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice in the victim.” After Defendant A coming from the toilet, Defendant A stated to the effect that “I left the victim as ice ice ice ice she was not the victim’s right away, and she was not the victim.” The above statement made by Defendant I was very specific and similar in the court of original instance. In light of the fact that I made a statement to the effect that it is very specific and similar in the court of original instance, the above statement is credibility (However, in light of the situation of confusion at that time, I could have failed to accurately grasp what the victim actually dice ice walk.).

C) Through a telephone conversation with a prosecutor, M made a statement to the effect that “Defendant A her parents saw that she would drink the victim’s spawn”, and 39) M’s father N also respondeded to the purport that “Defendant A, his father, who was his father, was in a spawn relationship with Defendant A, was spawn to the effect that “Defendant A was spawn to the victim that she was spawn,” and the above statement is 40) that each of the above statements conforms to the purport of the above statements made by Defendant B and I (However, in light of the present circumstances, M is likely that Defendant A was unable to accurately grasp what she actually spawn to the victim).

D) As such, each of the above statements by Defendant B, I, M, and N is reliable, and all of them are consistent with the purport that “Defendant A was drinking a body that cannot be consumed by people.”

Therefore, Defendant A’s ground of appeal is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendants and the prosecutor's allegation of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendants: Articles 257(1), 30 (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment), 260(1), and 30 (the point of violence and the choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment and concurrent punishment as provided for in the crime of injury around June 15, 2013, with the largest penalty)

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of punishment: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years and not more than six months;

2. Application of the sentencing guidelines: Six months to five years and six months (with respect to each violent crime group, each injury crime, each type of general injury (with respect to general injury), choice of the aggravated area, special adjustment of the scope of sentence (in the event that a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, six months to three years of imprisonment, and aggravated factors: the motive for the crime, method of cruel crimes, victims vulnerable to the crime) and the special adjustment of the scope of sentence (in the event that a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, four months to six years of imprisonment, method of cruel crimes, victim vulnerable to the crime) of the crime of assault, with respect to the crime of assault, the aggravated area among types 1 (general violence) of the crime of assault, the special adjustment of the scope of sentence (at least one year to six months of imprisonment, method of cruel crimes, victim vulnerable to the

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant A: Two years of imprisonment;

The Defendant recognized most of the crimes committed by the Defendant who assaulted the victim or inflicted bodily injury on the victim, and appeared to have an attitude to repent in depth at the latest. The Defendant has been making efforts to recover damage by deposit the parent of the victim with the above Defendant B as the victim and depositing KRW 1,50 million with the victim. The Defendant has no criminal record prior to each of the crimes in this case.

However, each of the crimes of this case by the Defendant appears to have been an opportunity to increase the degree of violence beyond the point of view by making the Defendant use of his own body and make it possible for the Defendant to assault the victim under his own direction and continuously demand the victim to do so under the pretext that he will study the high school school student who had been dead at the time of his school life in Gangnam, Incheon, with I and Defendant B, with which the nature of the crime was very serious. The Defendant: (a) he contracted with the mental fission; or (b) he made the virtual figures called "O" due to the Defendant A, and continuously demanded I to do so; and (c) as such, it appears that the Defendant was an opportunity to increase the degree of violence; (d) the Defendant sent the victim to the hospital with his own image while the victim had already been in a critical condition; and (e) the Defendant did not take active measures such as sending the victim’s image to the hospital; and (e) taken account of the need for the Defendant’s behavior to have the victim take off together with I and the victim’s image.

In addition, considering the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, health status, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., all of the sentencing conditions revealed in the trial process of the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, and the recommended type of punishment on the above sentencing guidelines (two to five months of imprisonment), the sentence of the lower court is not to be mitigated even considering that the Defendant made efforts to recover damage to the victim in the trial. Meanwhile, considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant in light of the above favorable circumstances, the sentence of the lower court is not to be sentenced by taking into account the lower court’s punishment. In so doing, the sentence was determined as ordered in consideration of all the above circumstances.

(b) Defendant B: 8 months of imprisonment;

As seen earlier, as the Defendant was in the trial, he has made a serious effort to recover damage, such as making the victim’s parents deposited with the Defendant A as the victim and depositing KRW 150,000,000,000, and the Defendant recognized all of his criminal acts and took the attitude to repent of his mistake late and late. There was no criminal punishment prior to each of the crimes in this case, and the Defendant appears to have abused the victim according to the orders of the above Defendant A or I, and at the same time, the Defendant appears to have been aware of the Defendant A when considering violence exceeding the degree of the Defendant A at the time.

However, the crime of this case is deemed to have been committed against high school students with the ability of self-defense by Defendant A and I, and the quality of the crime is poor. In addition to the assault stated in the facts charged of this case, the Defendant committed several assaults against the victim, as well as the Defendant appears to have committed several assaults against the victim, such as antenna, etc., and the Defendant proposed to select the victim's saw-to-sp top top top top top top top to the victim, or made an assault without any specific criminal responsibilities such as exchanging the victim's personality Mos and Mos to the victim while transmitting the victim's photograph to the above defendant, or giving the victim's character Mosp to the victim, even though the Defendant knew of the fact that the victim suffered pictures, etc., was taken by care of the victim's own self-defense, and did not withdraw proper measures against the victim's own heavy water, and in light of the fact that it was necessary to induce the victim to conceal the crime of this case, the Defendant was a person who recorded the victim's sexually.

In addition, considering all other circumstances that may serve as the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive for committing the crime, and circumstances after committing the crime, and the scope of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines set by the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee (two years and six months of imprisonment), the sentence of the lower court is not to be mitigated even considering the fact that the Defendant has endeavored to recover the victim’s damage in the trial. Meanwhile, considering the favorable circumstances of the Defendant as above, the lower court’s punishment is not to be imposed by taking into account the above favorable circumstances of the Defendant. In so doing, the sentence was set as the order

Part of innocence (the point of injury or death)

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

Defendants and I, as stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment of the court below, had the victim J (Nam, 16 years of age) appear to have the victim study even through harsh physical punishment if he did not attend the official book.

Although Defendant A could not return the victim to Gangnam, on March 2013, on the ground that the victim told B that he would return to Gangnam, Defendant A could not speak that he would return to Gangnam. However, at the stud toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, the body of the victim could be scam together with I and even at the stud toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, Defendant A could not scam the victim again.

I, from May 2013 to June 2013, 2013, on the ground that the victim did not study in the above studio, caused the victim's body in light of the victim's head, the shoulder part, etc. five times a week with golf loans, etc., and the victim A and B were punished twice a week with the victim's body.

In particular, around May 15, 2013, Defendant A found that I did not hear the victim's body and did not properly study the victim's body, and that I found the body of the body of the body of the victim, such as the head, the arms, and the body of the body of the body, such as the body of the victim, Belgium, and Belgium, and caused the victim to face with I before it, and caused the injury on the face by getting I to face with I before it. On June 15, 2013, Defendant A found I as a stud of the above studio that I did not know that I did not attend the register with the victim's body without hearing the horses, and caused the injury of the body of the victim such as the body of the body of the body of the body, such as the head, the body, and the body of the body of the victim with golf loans.

On May 12, 2013, Defendant B heard the victim’s speech that the victim does not listen to the speech and sustained the victim’s studio at the above studio, and Defendant B suffered injury, such as the victim’s ambuck, buckbucks, etc. from the victim’s antenna to the victim’s antenna in a number of times, and the victim’s ambucks, etc. before that time.

As such, from May 2013 to June 2013, the Defendants received contact with 1,200 p.m. 1, and found in the above studio as a Belgium, antenna, golf, etc., and suffered injury to the victim, i.e., a knife, a knife, a knife, and a knife knife.

In addition, Defendant A made a virtual figure of 2009 and introduced it to the internal body, and I sent I and received text messages as 'O', I think 'O' as 'O' and depend on 'O', and the Defendants sent text messages to 'O' under the name of 'O' when the Defendants do not have such 'O'. In particular, around May 13:42, 2013, Defendant A sent the message to 'I' and caused the victim to be punished by 'O'. In particular, Defendant A sent the message to 'I' as 'O' and 'I died of 'I'. I will die or die 'I', regardless of 'I will die.'

In addition, around June 24, 2013, the Defendants did not properly study the victims, and they did not listen to the horses of the Defendants, so it was false that Yoo was hospitalized in the hospital that 'Woo' caused 'Woo' caused 'Woo' to 'Woo' to 'Woo' as she did not hear the horses of the Defendants.

I, from June 24, 2013 to June 27, 2013, in the above studio, while trusting the Defendants’ above horses and psychologically unstable, talking about the situation of Defendant A by calling to the victim who did not properly study, and Defendant A, who caused heavy water to the victim twice in accordance with the above order, sustained the victim’s body, such as video, etc.

Accordingly, the Defendants, in collaboration with I, injured the victim's body, such as image, stove, and stoves, and thereby caused the victim's death in the above studio around 04:39 on June 29, 2013.

2. Determination

Of the summary of the above facts charged, the part that Defendant A was at the time of the victim's head with Belgium and golf loan, and the part that Defendant A caused the victim's death with heavy water, and the part that the defendants caused the victim's death with the victim's injury to the victim constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime as stated in the above 3-A. Thus, the above facts charged contain the injury and the crime of assault recognized above, but the above facts charged contain the above facts charged as stated in the judgment and the crime of assault, and the defendants have the opportunity to exercise sufficient defense right during the process of the examination of evidence, although the defendants were recognized as guilty without any substantial disadvantage to the defendants' defense right without any changes in the indictment, and thus, the part of the injury and the assault in the judgment as stated above is found guilty without going through the procedure of changing the indictment. Thus, the judgment is not to be pronounced separately.

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

Judges of the presiding judge, Yellow Judge

Judges Singing on Board

Judges Nam-yang

1) The nine pages of the examination of witness in one of the second trial records in the trial of the party;

2) The trial records No. 120 pages

3) exempt from the examination protocol No. 23-25 of the second trial records in the trial records

4) Of the second trial records, the examination of the witness with respect to I from 23 to 25 pages

5) The 10th examination protocol of the witness examination of I out of the second examination protocol of the trial of the party;

6) Of the second trial records, the examination of witness in the examination protocol No. 23-25 of the trial records

7) The trial records No. 120 pages

8) Evidence records No. 485

9) Right to separate evidence records 9, 388

10) Evidence records No. 209

11) No. 343 of title 7, except that the content cannot be confirmed by the record.

12) Right 7 non-exclusive rights 343

13) Evidence records No. 160, 166

14) I stated that the capacity of smelling at an investigative agency is about 4 litresponding, and that the capacity of small smelling is about 2 litresponding (the steam record No. 118 pages).

15) Right 9 Right 410

16) Right 9, 363, 364

17) Right 9, Right 399, Right 9

18) Evidence records 699 pages

19) The trial records No. 104

20) No. 107 of the trial record No. 21 of the trial record 945, 948 of the evidence evidence records, and No. 96 of the trial record

22) Examination of evidence Nos. 934, examination of witness in one of the second trial records in the trial of the court of the first instance, 4, 5 pages

23) Evidence No. 1060, No. 96 of the public trial records

24) The fourth page of the protocol of examination of a witness to I in the second protocol of the trial of the party.

25) Evidence records No. 1328

26) The trial records No. 117 pages

27) Evidence records No. 941

28) The trial records No. 11929), No. 128, 129 of the trial records

30) The trial records No. 132, 132

31) Evidence records No. 721

32) Evidence records No. 866

33) Evidence records No. 742

34) Evidence records No. 946

35) Evidence records No. 1328

36) Evidence records No. 1032

37) Evidence records No. 1336

38) Evidence records No. 945

39) Evidence records No. 1469

40) Evidence records, 960