Even though there is no proof on the surrounding facts to clearly point out the criminal intent of the facts charged and explain the background of the crime, it is not necessary to explain the innocence in the reasons of the judgment.

According to the applicable provisions of the indictment in this case and the written indictment and the prosecutor's statement of the facts charged, the part that the defendant, the former part of the indictment, was containing agrochemicals in Silute rice and pata in order to kill the victim in this case, is clear that the defendant was a normal technique to clarify the criminal intent for the part that he was involved in rain, thy, and spath, an agrochemical, and to indicate a criminal intent continuously. However, the court below found the defendant not guilty on the ground that there was no proof in the reasoning of the judgment as to the part that the defendant was containing agrochemicals in Silute rice and spathy, although it is clear that the latter part of the indictment was a normal technique to clarify the criminal intent about the part that he was involved in agrochemicals, spath and spath, which

Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

A

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (78Gohap35)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

One hundred and twenty days of detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The first ground for appeal by the prosecutor is that the defendant, who is the former part of the facts charged in this case, was not guilty for the reason that he mixed with rice mills and agrochemicals on the spawn, but according to each statement in the court of original instance by the police of the witness B, even though it could be recognized according to the witness B's statements, it affected the judgment by admitting facts beyond the rules of evidence and exceeding the limit of the principle of free evaluation of evidence. The second ground for appeal by the defense counsel is that the sentencing of the court below is too unfeasible and unfair. The first ground for appeal by the defense counsel is that the defendant only saw the defendant as the intention to kill the victim of this case to do so without the intention to kill the victim of this case and the defendant cannot be viewed as a crime of attempted murder, and even though the second ground for appeal by the defense counsel is that the defendant cannot be viewed as a crime of attempted murder, the court below erred by recognizing the fact and thereby affected the judgment, and even if not, the second ground for appeal by the court below is unreasonable.

First of all, according to the facts stated in the indictment of this case and the applicable provisions of the facts charged and the prosecutor explained in the trial court, the part on which the defendant, the former part of the indictment of this case, in order to kill the victim of this case, is clear that the defendant, who is the latter part of this part, was engaged in "non-, i.e., agricultural chemicals" and "non-c., i., e., s., s.i., s., s.i., s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s. s.s.

Therefore, a party member is reversed the judgment of the court below in accordance with Article 364 (2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and is again decided.

Criminal facts

The defendant, under the premise that it is easy to kill the above victim C (the years of age 41, the wife of the victim D) and the above victim D) in order to continue to teach the above victim C and due diligence, had the victim kills the above victim D on December 15, 197, and 15:00 on the defendant's house on the defendant's house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the above victim scam by mixing the "non-Pero," which is a homicide, with scambling agents with 3 scamblings, at around September 21:00 of the same month, after mixing the above agrochemicals with 10 days in love 10 days in order to kill the above victim D, the defendant continued to scambling the above victim's 10 days in order to kill the above victim's scambling, but the victim's scambling and 4 days in order to kill the above six days in the above 10th century.

Evidence Relation

The summary of evidence admitted by a member is the same as that of the judgment of the court below, and this is cited as it is.

The court below held that the defendant's judgment falls under Articles 254 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant selected a limited term of imprisonment and tried to commit this case, the defendant's punishment was legally mitigated pursuant to Articles 25 (2) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigator in charge immediately after the crime was committed, as the defendant voluntarily surrenders to the investigator in charge pursuant to Articles 52 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, there is a reason to take into account various circumstances as the principal offender, so the defendant is subject to mitigation pursuant to Articles 52 (1) and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, within the scope of punishment mitigated pursuant to Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, he shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 months and included 120 days from the number of detention days before the sentence was declared pursuant to Article 57 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-sik (Presiding Judge)