[1] The method of finding guilty in a case without any direct evidence such as witness's statement

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of murdering the victim with knife on the ground that the victim's death was not a murder by the defendant's intentional act but a contingent accident without any reasonable doubt. After remanding new evidence, the court below found the defendant guilty in the same manner as the judgment of the court below before remand, but it cannot be ruled out the possibility of death by the victim's contingent accident like the judgment of remand

[1] In a case where no direct evidence, such as witness’s statement, exists, the defendant may be found guilty only when the facts charged can be inferred beyond reasonable doubt by applying logical rules and empirical rules to indirect facts acknowledged by legitimate evidence.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of murdering the victim by intentionally knife on the ground that the victim's death was not an intentional murder but an contingent accident without reasonable doubt. After remanding the case, the court below found the defendant guilty in the same manner as the judgment of the court below before remanding the case, but it cannot be ruled out that the victim's possibility of death by contingent accident cannot be ruled out like the judgment of remanding the case

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do5350 delivered on February 25, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 916) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do327 delivered on March 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 133), Supreme Court Decision 94Do135 delivered on September 13, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2695), Supreme Court Decision 95Do535 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong195Sang, 2146), Supreme Court Decision 97Do974 delivered on July 25, 197 (Gong1997Ha, 2754), Supreme Court Decision 97Do3979 delivered on September 13, 1998 (Gong2979Do39799 delivered on September 29, 197)

Defendant

Attorney Lee Dong-soo

Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 99Do5350 Delivered on February 25, 2000

Seoul High Court Decision 2000No706 delivered on July 7, 2000

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant and defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.

1. Summary of the facts charged in this case

The Defendant had frequently fighting with the husband because it is not good with the victim who is the husband at ordinary times. At around 01:20 on March 12, 1999, the Defendant followed the victim and tried to have the victim fightd with the married couple, and the victim was able to listen to the insulting remarks from the victim, and then the victim gets knife the knife to murder the victim with the knife, knife the knife on the entrance, and kills the victim's left chest once by taking the knife on the knife on the part of the entrance.

2. Defendant's assertion;

While the defendant repeatedly denies the crime by the prosecution, there were many cases where the victim was knife while fighting between the defendant and his husband. At the time of the instant case, the defendant collected the knife on the part before the visit of the defect intending to get out of the dispute with the victim, and knife the defendant with the knife, knife and knife the defendant's body while leaving the right part by left hand, knife the defendant's body, and knife the defendant's knife without the defendant's knife until knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

3. The judgment of the court below prior to remand

First, after eliminating the possibility of suicide of the victim, the issues of this case maintained the conclusion of the judgment of the first instance that found the defendant guilty of the charges on the part of the defendant, on the ground that the defendant, while the victim knife the knife and knife the knife had the knife in the knife, or the defendant intentionally knife the knife had the knife due to the causes such as the victim's knife and the victim's knife with other obstacles, in light of all the circumstances such as the victim's own knife, his own knife, his own knife and knife, his own knife and knife, and the physical situation of the victim.

4. Judgment of remand;

Examining the case, the part of the judgment of the court below that ruled that the victim's suicide possibility was excluded can be fully accepted, and further, based on the evidence adopted through legitimate evidence examination, the victim knife and faced each other at the time of threatening the defendant, and the victim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife toward the back of the knife, and the victim knife knife knife toward the back of the knife. The victim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knifs about 15cm in the outer side.

However, based on the above facts, the court below excluded the possibility of contingent accidents on the ground that the victim knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife the victim's left hand knife, or that the victim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knifes the victim's right part of his right shoulders

왜냐하면 원심이 지지증거로 인용한 국립과학수사연구소장 작성의 사실조회회보서에는 그와 같은 판단을지지할 만한 아무런 기재도 없는 반면, 오히려 함께 지지증거로 인용한 서울대학교 의과대학 법의학교실 이윤성 작성의 사실조회회보서는, "피해자의 치명적인 자창은 칼이 갈비뼈나 물렁뼈를 다치지 않고 순전히 근육만을 자르고 들어감으로써 특별히 인체조직의 저항이 없었을 것으로 보여지므로 칼을 빼는 행위도 특별한 힘이 필요하지 않았을 것으로 보여져서 당시 피해자가 칼을 손에 쥐고 있었다면 자창 직후 스스로 칼을 뺐을 수도 있으며, 타살의 가능성을 완전히 배제할 수는 없으나, 이 사건과 같이 피해자가 피고인과 서로 실랑이를 하던 중 칼에 찔리는 상황이 현실에서 드물지 않고, 피고인이 피해자와 마주서서 피해자를 칼로 찔렀다면 자창의 방향이 아래로 향하여야 할 것인데도 이 사건에서 자창의 방향이 거의 수평이라는 점과 피해자가 정상적인 건강상태여서 비록 짧은 시간이기는 하지만 찔린 뒤라도 행동이 전혀 불가능하지는 않는데도 자신보다 약한 피고인으로부터 공격을 받았으면서도 그 신체에 아무런 방어손상이 없다는 점 등에서 오히려 일반적인 타살과는 다르므로, 결론적으로 이 사건은 피해자와 피고인이 서로 실랑이를 하던 도중에 우발적으로 일어난 사고로 인한 것일 가능성도 있다."는 취지로 되어 있을 뿐이고, 그 밖에 우발적인 사고로 인한 가능성을 배제할 만한 자료는 찾아볼 수 없으므로, 이 사건에서 피해자의 사망이 피고인의 고의에 의한 살해행위가 아닌 우발적인 사고로 인한 것일 가능성도 엄연히 존재한다고 할 수 있고, 그와 같은 가능성이 합리적인 의심 없이 배제되지 않는 이상 피고인이 피해자를 칼로 찔러서 살해하였다는 사실 또한 합리적인 의심이 없을 정도로 증명되었다고 볼 수 없음이 분명하기 때문이다.

Therefore, although there is no evidence to support the facts charged in this case that the defendant intentionally killed the victim with knife, the court below found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged merely on the ground that there is no possibility of the victim's suicide or the possibility of the victim's death due to any contingent accident, the court below committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by recognizing facts beyond the limit of the free evaluation of evidence in violation of the rules of evidence against the remaining rules of evidence.

5. The judgment of the court below after remand

First of all, the victim's suicide possibility was ruled out by the defendant's change, and then the victim's knife and the victim's knife who suffered from the defendant's knife had knife knife due to his own mistake. First, the defendant since the prosecution of the court below to the court below, the defendant knife knife the victim at the time of threatening the defendant, and the victim's knife knife with the knife was knife with the knife toward the knife, the knife part toward the knife, and the knife's knife that the knife knife toward the knife part toward the knife.

Furthermore, the defendant stated that the knif the knife would have been kniffed by the victim's knife and that the knife would have been knife and that the knife would have been knife, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, and that the knife would have been knife and that the knife would have been knife by the defendant, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, then that part of the defendant's knife would have been knife, and that part of the defendant's body would have been k.

6. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. As in the instant case, in a case without any direct evidence, such as a witness’s statement, it is a major principle of criminal procedure to find the Defendant guilty only when the facts charged can be inferred to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt by applying the logical rule and the empirical rule to the indirect facts found by legitimate evidence. As such, in the instant case, the possibility of committing suicide by the victim or the possibility of the victim’s death by suffering bodily injury such as the facts charged due to contingent accidents should be ruled out without reasonable doubt. Thus, it should be presumed that the victim’s death was caused by the Defendant’s act knifeing the Defendant’s knife, the Defendant can only be found guilty of the instant murder charges.

(b) Facts recognized on records;

The victim was facing each other at the time when knife the knife was knife and the knife was knife when the knife was knife, the knife was knife toward the upper part of the knife (in light of the record, it is clear that the knife of the victim indicated before and after the remand is transferred to the upper part of the knife), and on the left part of the deceased victim, the knife of the knife had a knife about 2.5cm in length, the depth of 15cm in length, and the knife of the deceased victim had a knife at the outside, and the knife had a knife immediately followed without being knife from the inside, and the knife had no other knife or defense had no sife.

C. Determination

The court below acknowledged that the defendant did not make accurate statements as to the blade's direction, but the blade's direction towards the ground (i.e., the blade's body part was outside, and the blade's part was remanded to the court below and the court below did not raise any specific objection before the decision of the court below. According to the witness's testimony after remanding the case, the court below excluded the possibility of death caused by an unexpected accident of the victim in light of the victim's own initiative form on this premise.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below regarding the direction of the knife. This is because the defendant did not make a clear statement about the knife's direction at an investigation agency or court. Furthermore, the court below did not raise any objection to the trial on the premise that the knife direction had come toward the ground after remanding the court below. However, it is difficult to view that the defendant did not make a concrete statement on the knife's knife, because the defendant did not raise any objection to it, or that it did not do so. However, it is difficult to view that the knife's direction at the court date after remanding the case as a specific issue, and that the defendant would know that knife's knife's direction would be next to the case and that the knife's knife's direction would not be changed to the direction of the court below (if the knife's knife would be changed to the court below's direction).

Furthermore, even according to the testimony of the above witness, the knife's knife may change without recognizing the knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife.

Furthermore, in light of the victim's own initiative, it is difficult to see that the defendant has reached knife the victim's left chest by cutting the knife from the victim's knife as stated in the judgment of the court below. In other words, as seen above, the victim's own chest habits of this case can only be seen as having reached knife on the left chest, and there is no other damage on the part of the victim's body, and there is no knife or defense trace. However, if the defendant knife with the victim's knife with the victim's knife with the victim's knife in the direction, it seems difficult to set the knife the knife in the direction below or above (i.e., the victim's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's k.

In addition, according to the records, the defendant is a female with a size of 160cm and the victim is a male with a height of 170cm or more (174-5cm or above according to the defendant's statement) with a height of 170cm or above (436cm or above according to the defendant's statement) in light of gender, physical condition, etc., it is difficult to deem the defendant to have taken the knife from the victim without having received any resistance, and even if the knife has taken the knife, there is no resistance against the victim. In this case, the defendant in this case did not sife any knife with any knife or resistance, and there is no other knife or any other knife. In light of this, it is difficult to see that

In addition, the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that if the victim had already been kniffed by the victim at the time when the defendant deducteds the knife from the victim, the victim can take knife his knife and then cut his knife his knife again, the victim who has suffered a fatal knife can do so, and the victim at the time the knife knife reported the victim on the knife, the situation at the time the victim knife knife did not knife the knife, and the victim stated that the knife did not do so with knife while the knife was knife in the knife.

However, according to the records, in the case of the above part of the above part of the above case, the knife victim can be subtracted from the knife without any difficulties (315, 320, 449) and the second circumstance cited by the court below cannot be ruled out where the defendant is dead in the situation where the defendant is dead, it is hard to find the defendant guilty on the sole basis of such circumstances.

As above, there is no clear evidence as to the direction of the knife at the time of the instant case, and therefore, the court below acknowledged that the knife direction of the victim led to the ground, and found the defendant guilty by excluding the possibility of any contingent accident by the victim and excluding the possibility of any contingent accident. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the argument in the grounds of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

7. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)