[1] The degree of probative value of evidence to acknowledge guilty in a criminal trial

[2] The probative value of indirect evidence and the degree of proof of indirect facts in a criminal trial with heavy statutory penalty, such as murder

[3] The case holding that it is difficult to view that each of the above crimes of murder was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt solely on the grounds of the following indirect evidence and indirect facts related to the death of Byung, as to the facts charged of murder committed by the defendant's wife Gap, who caused the death of Eul by melting the breath of drinking water, and caused the death of a capsule, which caused the loss of liquidation by pretending the brue or the brue as if the brue had been placed in front of the house of Eul and Byung and Byung, and who caused the death of a capsule which caused the loss of liquidation by forging the brue, as if the brue was based on the brue's acquisition process

[1] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [3] Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675 Decided March 9, 2006 (Gong2006Sang, 685) Supreme Court Decision 2008Do507 Decided March 27, 2008 / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10754 Decided March 13, 2008

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Kim Young-ho

Daejeon High Court Decision 2010No76 decided August 6, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The finding of guilt in a criminal trial ought to be based on evidence with probative value that leads a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is any doubt as to the defendant's guilt, it shall be determined with the benefit of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8675, Mar. 9, 2006). Meanwhile, even in the case of a crime with heavy statutory penalty, such as murder, it may be found guilty with indirect evidence without direct evidence even in the case of a crime with heavy statutory penalty, such finding of guilt requires careful judgment by using indirect evidence closely related to the facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do10754, Mar. 13, 2008). In particular, even in the acknowledgement of indirect facts based on indirect evidence, such proof should reach the extent that it does not permit a reasonable doubt. One of such indirect facts does not conflict with it, and thus, should be supported by logical and empirical and scientific rules.

2. On April 29, 2009, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above victim's death and injury caused by drinking water such as 0.1 to 0.2g or more of the victim's 200 days after recording the victim's house located in Boan-si (hereinafter omitted), and found the defendant guilty of the above victim's death and injury from drinking water such as 0.1 to 0.2g or more on the same day. On the same day, the court below found the victim's 20 days after the defendant's house less the contents of the medication from 0.1 to 0.2gg of the caps, and found the victim's death and injury from 0.27g or more of the victim's death and the defendant's 2 days more than 0.1 to 0.27g more than the victim's death and the defendant's 2 days more than 1 to 3 days more than 1 to 3 days more than 1 to 2 to 47777777 days later.

3. In full view of the circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the first instance court based on the evidence adopted by the evidence, especially the relationship between the defendant and the victims, the defendant's behavior at the time before and after each of the crimes of this case, and the testimony and scientific evidence methods of various witnesses supporting the defendant's identity, etc., the court below's determination of guilty of each of the above charges is unreasonable. However, in light of the above, the court below's determination should be more careful and more careful in finding guilty in the crime of this case, and should not keep suspicions in the process thereof. In so doing, the court below's determination cannot deny the following points of doubt or insufficient parts.

A. First, we examine the process of obtaining liquidation objection that the defendant used for the crime of this case.

(1) The lower court determined as follows: (a) Nonindicted 4 and 5’s statement that the liquidation interest used for each of the instant crimes was given to the Defendant; (b) Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 5, from around December 2008, were requested by the Defendant to seek a settlement interest rate because they were necessary for matching strimulated, etc. from the Defendant; (c) but failed to seek, it was found from Nonindicted 4’s “○○ Machinery,” which he operated by Nonindicted 4, on a sudden basis; and (d) around January 10:30 on January 6, 2009, Nonindicted 5 was dried to Nonindicted 5 at the △△△△△△ Office located in Pyeongtaek-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and Nonindicted 5, at around 17:30 on the same day, was reliable; and (d) it was sufficient to recognize that the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes by using it.

(2) However, the above statements made by Nonindicted 4 and 5 are as follows.

First, on August 24, 2009, Non-Indicted 4 made the first statement on August 24, 200 regarding the process of finding liquidation interest, “Non-Indicted 4 found that the paper without a lid lid lid lid lid lid lid lid from the display site of ○○ Machinery, thereby releasing dust through aircom, and he stored a large amount of dust at the time and color color was not white.” (Evidence record 1,129 pages, 1,132 pages) from the second statement of the police on August 29, 209, Non-Indicted 1 found that the parts were stored in the display site of ○○ Machinery, and that there was no difference between the non-Indicted 1 and the second statement on August 15, 2009 and the second statement on August 29, 2009, it was without merit due to the fact that there was a little change in the surface before and after the second statement on the non-Indicted 1 as well as due to the fact that there was no difference between the previous vinyl 1,161,17.

In addition, as to the changed statement made by Nonindicted 4, according to its statement, Nonindicted 4 did not use a liquidation interest after removing the ○○ machine from Ansan around the spring of 1993, and thus, the liquidation interest rate is at least 16 years (in the court of first instance, it stated that it remains after being used before 20 to 30 years in the court of first instance). It was found on January 2009 that the parts contained above in the ○○ mechanical display site were left neglected in the distribution of steel products. In addition, even according to the above internal photographic video (Evidence Record 659 to 60 pages) of the above ○○ machine, it does not seem that the parts, etc. were stored in the distribution of livestock products, and even if so, even if so, even if so, it was difficult to do so, it was opened without holding it for more than 16 years, in light of the size of the ○○ machine display site or its display condition, etc.

In addition, with respect to the dynamics on the day on which Nonindicted Party 5 had known that Nonindicted Party 5 had used an expressway three times, including the Defendant’s access to the coast guard, and the Defendant had been seen to have been on the day before the settlement rate. Nonindicted Party 5 had access to the Tolol set at around 18:30 on the same day, and entered the Tolol set at around 18:39 on the same day. At around 21:07, Nonindicted Party 5 argued that Nonindicted Party 5 used the expressway on three occasions, such as by entering the Plol set at around 21:49 (Evidence evidence record, investigation report on each page of 679,686). However, Nonindicted Party 5 did not report the settlement rate only two times among the settlement details of the vehicle driven by Nonindicted Party 5, but did not report the settlement interval to the Defendant (see, e.g., the objective investigation report on the settlement interval).

(3) Of course, the fact that it is not deemed that there is an original relationship to make the Defendant, who was irrelevant to Nonindicted 4 and 5 as a criminal, does not seem to exist, and in light of the various circumstances cited by the lower court and the first instance judgment, it is highly likely that he/she made a false statement. However, even if so, it is necessary to clarify the above question points.

B. Furthermore, even in a case where it is deemed that Nonindicted 4 and 5 delivered liquidation interest to the Defendant as stated in each of the statements by Nonindicted 5, it can be concluded that the liquidation interest had maintained the efficacy as a toxic substance.

In ordinary, the Cycholarium(or Cychocalium) is a scientific rule established that, when the piracy is strong and preserved, melting water without melting it by melting water, and melting carbon dioxide in the air by melting carbon dioxide in the air due to dychodeing and releasing sule and sulium in carbon.

However, in the instant case, it is clear in the scientific rule that if the liquidation interest rate, as Nonindicted 4’s initial statement, that the Defendant was fluored for a short period of 16 years in a paper package without a liding a white lid, or if the fluor was left unattended for 20 to 30 years, it would no longer remain a toxic substance. Furthermore, even if the aforementioned liquidation interest rate was contained in the distribution of steel products containing a lid, such as Nonindicted 4’s statement reversed, it is doubtful whether it remains after maintaining toxicity during a long period of time. Therefore, even if it is acknowledged the credibility of Nonindicted 4’s statement before the alteration of Nonindicted 4, it is difficult to conclude that the aforementioned liquidation interest rate had been kept for a long period of time, and that there was no possibility that it would be any possibility that it would remain a fluorous substance and any possibility that it would remain more than the aforementioned liquidation by hearing and making a final judgment on the possibility that it would have been made available for the remaining one-year liquidation (the court below’s final judgment should be concluded.

C. Next, we examine indirect evidence related to the death of the victim Nonindicted 2 and 3.

(1) First of all, according to the records, the victim Nonindicted 2 and 3's house kitchen room was dried in front of the Defendant's house, and the newspaper was funded with the Defendant's house leaves. However, if the newspaper was "Seongsan News" with the Defendant's house, the newspaper was dried up, "Isnish so that Isnish do not go back to the future, and it was opened with a recovery system," and "Isnish (Evidence records, 79 pages, 144 and 146 pages)." The National Science Investigation Institute, which written and written the above newspaper, submitted the appraisal result that the above book is identical to the Defendant's pen, and the excessive book also submitted the appraisal result that is identical with the Defendant's private pen found at the Defendant's house (Evidence records, 448 pages, 1040 pages, 1,040 pages), it can be found that there was no indirect evidence or indirect evidence to prove that there was a disguised liquidation of the above newspaper due to a disguised recovery system.

(2) However, in light of the fact that a capsule was discovered in the Defendant’s house, if the above victims were to be in a capsule, such as the statement in the facts charged, they can also be a strong indirect evidence that can be inferred the Defendant as a criminal. However, in relation to this, the lower court supported the first instance court, which held that, unlike the victim Nonindicted 1, who was found in a disguised sule in a disguised manner as a result of the examination of the body of the victims, the victim Nonindicted 2 and 3, unlike the victim Nonindicted 1, who was found in a disguised sule in a disguised sule, can be presumed to have been caused by a capsule that contains a false sule, but there is no scientific basis that can be presumed as above, even if examining the record, it cannot be found that the above determination is weak.

(3) Meanwhile, at around 20:00 on the day immediately before the death, the victim Nonindicted 2 and 3 returned home with two healthy drinks after completing the crypt tour, and went home with two health drinks. Since the above health drinks have been found from the victim’s body side to the victim’s body after the death, the victim Nonindicted 3’s gene type was found at the victim’s entrance (Evidence record, photographic image of 70 pages, 394 pages, investigation report of 546 pages, etc.), and the above victims seem to have drinking once again one of the above health drinks before the death of one. However, it is unclear whether the above health drinks was inspected by an investigative agency, but if it is not discovered that the toxic substance was not detected, it is necessary to clarify the possibility that the above health beverages might have been liquidated. Thus, it is also necessary to clarify it.

D. In conclusion, considering the aforementioned circumstances, it is difficult to view that the crime of murder of this case by indirect evidence and indirect facts cited by the first instance court and the lower court alone was proven to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt that the crime of murder of this case was committed by the Defendant. Therefore, the lower court should have closely examined various matters as seen earlier, and even if all of such circumstances are considered, it should have determined that there was evidence of guilt only when it can be confirmed that the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant. However, the lower court did not reach such determination and found the Defendant guilty of each of the above crimes for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on probative value of evidence to acknowledge facts contrary to the empirical rule, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Meanwhile, since each of the above facts charged of murder of this case are related to the facts charged of violating the Mountainous Districts Management Act and Pharmaceutical Affairs Act and the facts charged of concurrent crimes under Article

4. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)