Liability of the rest of the accomplices who did not have or are not aware of the murder committed by one of the robberys;

From among the accomplices in robbery, the remaining accomplices who do not have any intention or awareness of murder shall not be held liable for the murder of robbery in light of the intent of Article 15(1) of the Criminal Act: Provided, That in a case where the result of death was caused by a harmful act that they could have predicted, the liability for the murder of robbery shall not be exempted in light of the legal principles of the murder of robbery.

Articles 15(1), 30, and 338 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Defendants and Prosecutor

Incheon District Court of the first instance (85 Gohap210)

(1) Of the judgment below, the part on Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is reversed.

Each of the above Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

The sixty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above punishment.

The excessive one (No. 28) seized shall be forfeited from Defendant 4.

The altered portion in one copy of the resident registration certificate seized (No. 34) shall be discarded.

Attached Form 2 (Evidence No. 20,21,40,41) shall be recorded in the list and shall be returned to each of the victims concerned.

(2) All appeals filed by Defendant 1 and the Prosecutor against the Defendant are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The summary of the grounds for appeal by each defense counsel of the defendants 1, 2, 4 and 1 (including the defendants 3) is as follows: with respect to the robbery during the construction work of this case, the defendants 2, 3, and 4 did not have the intention of murder; as to the murder during the construction work of this case, the defendant 1 did not have the possibility of predicting the result of the death of the victim because the defendant 1 was in the place where the victim was harmed; therefore, the defendants cannot be the co-principal of the crime of robbery. However, even though the remaining defendants can be established only as a co-principal of the crime of robbery, the court below sentenced the defendants as co-principal of the crime of robbery. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of robbery and the co-principal, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, and the summary of the appeal by the defendant 2 is as follows. The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant 1 is as follows: the defendant 2 is as follows.

2. Determination on Defendant 1’s appeal

First, according to the first ground for appeal by the court below with the records and comparison of the evidence legitimately examined and adopted by the court below on the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1, since the victim 1 was under surveillance at the guard room such as the time of original judgment with the victim's blurium and blurium, the victim's blurium blurium added to the guard room and blurium blurt the victim's blurium and blurt the victim's life with his body and blurt the body, it is difficult for the court below to blurt the victim's back head and blurt the defendant's crime to be committed, so it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant 1 murdered the victim by blurging the victim's quality due to excessive pressure at that time (the motive for murder and burging of this case's crime cannot be accepted by misapprehending the legal principles as to the defendant 1's mental and physical disorder or the record of unfair sentencing after the defendant 2's suspect's appeal.

3. Determination on each appeal filed by Defendant 2, 3, and 4

First, as to the robbery of this case, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 conspired with Defendant 1 as to the robbery of this case and robbery of this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Defendant 2, 3, and 4 knew of the above murder by the judicial police officer and prosecutor's protocol of investigation about the above Defendants 2, 3, and 4, each of the above Defendants' statements in the trial records of the court below was acknowledged only as the result of the murder of the victim by Defendant 1, and such facts cannot be acknowledged as constituting the crime of robbery. In light of the above legal principles as to the crime of robbery of this case, the court below's finding that the above Defendants did not have any effect on the robbery of this case's robbery, and that the defendant 2, 3, and 4 did not have to have any effect on the robbery of this case's crime, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the court below erred by the evidence that the defendant 1 did not have any effect on the crime of robbery of this case's 2, 3, and 4 were found to have no responsibility for the defendant 2, per se.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by Defendant 1 and the prosecutor against Defendant 1 is without merit, and they are dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. As to Defendants 2, 3, and 4, the part of the judgment below against the Defendants is reversed under Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

The criminal facts against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 and the summary of the evidence thereof recognized as a party member are the same as those at the time of the original trial except for the alteration of the facts of 2-C (C) at the time of original trial against the Defendants in the criminal facts, and therefore, they are cited as they are in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The Defendants 2, 3, and 4's respective robbery in so-called "crimes" are as follows: Articles 338 and 30 of the Criminal Act (However, as seen above, the Defendants are faced with robbery by Article 15 (1) of the Criminal Act). Each special robbery is as follows: Article 334 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act; Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act provides that each special robbery falls under Article 225 of the Criminal Act; since several offenses committed by the Defendants are concurrent crimes as provided in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act; Article 38 (1) 1 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act are to be punished for life imprisonment with prison labor for each of the above crimes; Article 38 (1) 4 of the Criminal Act; Article 50 of the Criminal Act provides that each of the above crimes shall be subject to forfeiture and forfeiture within the scope of punishment of imprisonment with prison labor for the first time, and Article 55 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act provides that each of the above crimes shall be subject to forfeiture and forfeiture and forfeiture.

5. It is so decided as per Disposition for more than one reason.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Jung-dae (Presiding Judge)