2015Do7989 Murder

A person shall be appointed.

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney C

Seoul High Court Decision 2014No2721 Decided May 14, 2015

September 10, 2015

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the assertion of violation of the principle of evidence trial, the conviction in a criminal trial shall be based on evidence with probative value sufficient to mislead the judge that the facts charged are true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to form such a conviction, the defendant's interest should be determined by the defendant even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty. However, such conviction should not be formed by direct evidence, but may be formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the principle of logic and experience. Even if indirect evidence does not have full probative value as to the facts charged individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value that can not be independent if comprehensive examination of all evidence exists in relation to each other, the crime can also be recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4481, Jul. 12, 2013, etc.).

After considering the facts and circumstances as stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the following facts: ① the victim appears to have died of light pressure due to the external force of the victim who was at the time of committing the crime stated in the facts charged; ② The possibility that the victim is not the defendant; ② there was no one who sees the victim after hearing the victim at the time of committing the crime; ② unlike the defendant’s assertion that the victim had calls with the victim after hearing the victim’s house, it appears that the defendant had conversations with the victim during the victim’s house; ③ the defendant was able to start the victim’s call from the first floor after taking the victim’s house with awareness of CCTV to start the victim’s call; ③ the defendant did not appear to have his house after leaving the victim’s house to take advantage of the victim’s house, and the defendant did not have any other motive or possibility of laundry as to the defendant’s money laundering, and the defendant did not have any other motive or laundry in the part where it was found that it was difficult to find the defendant’s statement.

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, or by violating the steam trial principle, the presumption of innocence, or the Supreme Court precedents.

However, the lower court calculated the error of CCTV image on January 23, 2014, which was calculated on January 23, 2014 through January 29, 2014 at the beginning of 14/28/14/14/14/34 of each day, considering the possibility that the time of CCTV image was rapidly higher than 2/3 seconds each day from January 23, 2014. However, the lower court did not have any particular impact on the Defendant’s statement on the telephone time with the victim, even when applying the error of 13/58/14 to 14/14/14/4 of the error duly calculated.

2. As to the assertion that the facts charged are not specified, the purport of Article 254(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act stipulating the time, place, and method of a crime is to limit the scope of the trial to the court and facilitate the exercise of the defense right by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. Thus, considering the nature of the crime charged, it is sufficient to specify the facts causing the public prosecution by stating the time, time, place, method, purpose, etc. to the extent that it can distinguish the facts constituting the grounds for the public prosecution from other facts. Even if some of them are unclear, the facts charged can be specified by other matters indicated together with it, and therefore, if it does not interfere with the exercise of the defense right of the defendant, it does not affect the validity of the public prosecution (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do3623, Aug. 20, 2009).

Examining the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the specification of the facts charged, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, in determining the guilty on the ground that no deadly weapons are specified in the facts charged but no impediment exists to the defense of the Defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ko Young-han

Justices Lee In-bok et al.

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Justices Kim Gin-young