2020Do937 A homicide (Death or Injury caused by a crime recognized against Defendant BU, BV, or B)

(b) Magion;

(c) Attempted robbery;

(d) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(e) Fraud;

1.(c)(d)(e)(B);

2.(b)BU

3.(a) BV

4.(a) BW

Defendants and Prosecutor ( Defendants BU, BV, B)

Law Firm in the 21st century (for defendant B), the General Law Office

Attorney Seo-il, Attorneys Seo-il, and Kim beneficiary

Attorney Kang Do-ok (for the defendant BU)

Attorney Kim Song-il (the national election for Defendant BV)

Law Firm Lee Ba-s (Defendant BW)

Attorney Seo-gu, Lee Jin-ju, Lee Jin-ju, Park Jong-hee, Lee Jae-hee, Park Jong-won

Gwangju High Court Decision 2020No19, 2020No56 (Consolidated), 2020No148 (Consolidated) Decided June 23, 2020

October 15, 2020

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted Defendant BU, BV, and B on the charge of murder on the ground that there was no proof of crime. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the negligence of

2. Judgment on Defendant B’s grounds of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of murder charges. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the intent of murdering. Examining various circumstances, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence of 18 years with respect to Defendant B cannot be deemed significantly unfair even if considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

3. Judgment on Defendant BU’s ground of appeal

Examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court cannot be deemed to have sentenced the Defendant BU to 10 years of imprisonment, even in light of the circumstances asserted in the grounds of appeal.

4. Judgment on Defendant BV’s ground of appeal

Examining various circumstances, such as Defendant BV’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for up to 11 years cannot be deemed as extremely unfair even in light of the circumstances asserted in the ground of appeal.

5. Judgment on Defendant B’s ground of appeal

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court convicted Defendant B of the death resulting from bodily injury. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on causation

6. Conclusion

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

Justices Lee Dong-won

Jung-hwa

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for the defendant

Justices Heung-gu