[1] In a case where the issue is whether the defendant has Korean nationality as a premise for applying the Criminal Code, whether the defendant bears the burden of proof (=public prosecutor)

[2] In a case where the Defendant, who lost Korean nationality, was indicted for committing murdering against Party A, murdering against Korea in the Philippines, robbery against Party B, attempted abandonment of the body of Party A and Party B, and robbery against Party B in the Republic of Korea in collusion with Party B, the case holding that the dismissal of prosecution on this part of the facts charged on the ground that the Defendant did not have jurisdiction over the Republic of Korea, for the murder against Party A and attempted abandonment of the body of Party B and Party B

[1] In a criminal trial, where the issue is whether a defendant has the nationality of the Republic of Korea, as a premise for applying the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the defendant has the nationality of the Republic of Korea, so long as there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has

[2] In a case where a defendant who has lost Korean nationality was indicted on charges of murdering against A, murdering against South Korea, murdering against B in the Republic of Korea at a local place in the Philippines, attempted abandonment of the body of Gap and Eul, and attempted robbery against B in the Republic of Korea, the case dismissing the prosecution of this part of the charges on the ground that a foreigner's overseas crime is not applicable since the crime listed in Article 5 of the Criminal Act or attempted abandonment of the body of the Republic of Korea does not fall under the main sentence of Article 6 of the Criminal Act, and there is no proof that the part of attempted abandonment of the body of a Korean citizen Eul constitutes a crime under the main sentence of Article 6 of the Criminal Act, but the Criminal Act cannot be applied pursuant to the proviso of Article 6 of the Criminal Act since there is no evidence that the part of attempted abandonment of the body of a Korean citizen Eul constitutes a crime under the laws of the Republic of Korea.

[1] Articles 3, 5, and 6 of the Criminal Act; Article 308 of the Criminal Procedure Act / [2] Article 13(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 2, 5, 6, 7, 30, 161(1), 162, 250(1), 338, and 342 of the Criminal Act; Article 12 subparag. 4 (see current Article 15(1)) of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431 of Dec. 13, 1997); Article 308, and Article 327 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Both parties

Freeboard Kim & 1 other

Attorney Lee Jin-hun et al.

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Gohap161 Decided May 30, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for life and by imprisonment for 15 years, respectively.

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the prosecution against murder and attempted abandonment of the body is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

When receiving money from Nonindicted 1 as the price for the purchase of used vehicles from the victim Nonindicted 1, it is limited to allowing the victim to enter the place of crime for the purpose of preserving the part of personal expenses paid by the victim, and not inducing the victim to engage in the commission of Nonindicted 1 for the purpose of murder or taking lectures. As Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 collected and executed robbery against the victims who are the scam of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 did not conspired to commit an offense, and the actual one is merely monitoring Nonindicted 3 and transferring the above victims who are the scam in total by Defendant 2 under the direction of Nonindicted 2, and monitoring the victim Nonindicted 3 and Defendant 2. This is merely a mere fact that the above victim was indicted in the Philippines in 207 and detained in custody in the judgment of innocence in 209, and thus, it does not have escaped for a long time.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Imprisonment with prison labor sentenced by the court below to Defendant 1 is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

Although Nonindicted 2 prevented the victim Nonindicted 3, who tried to flee in the process of shooting a gun with the victim Nonindicted 4 and 1 in turn, and Nonindicted 2 did not have a gun in advance, it was true that Nonindicted 2 did not have a gun. Nonindicted 2 knew that the victim was from confirming the documents related to the sale and purchase of used cars, and did not gather the crime in advance with Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 1, nor promised to receive the benefit of the crime. Nonindicted 2, who was unable to do so, and was in relation to Defendant 1, was informed of the head of the passbook number and the head of the passbook number and the head of the Tong number was notified without any doubt that it was related to Defendant 1. The return of Nonindicted 2, who returned to the Republic of Korea for self-denunciation, was a strong reflect that there was no conspiracy.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

Imprisonment (18 years of imprisonment) imposed on Defendant 2 is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

Each sentence sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. Whether Defendant 1’s jurisdiction over Defendant 1 exists

1) The nationality of the defendant

According to Article 12 Subparag. 4 of the former Nationality Act (wholly amended by Act No. 5431, Dec. 13, 1997), the Defendant asserted that he acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Korea in 196, and considered the Defendant’s nationality as to “a person who acquired the nationality of a foreign country by self-reliance” as a national of the Republic of Korea (Article 15(1) of the current Nationality Act also has the same provision).

On July 30, 2013, a prosecutor submitted the matters related to the nationality of a defendant, which were confirmed in the course of an investigation, as a appendant document of his written opinion, and the content of the fact is that the defendant alleged that he is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident on the basis of his personal information, and asked the Embassy of the U.S. to determine whether he is a U.S. citizen or permanent resident on the basis of his personal information. According to the contents of the fact-finding to the Embassy of the U.S. in Korea at the trial, a citizen of the Republic of Marshall Islands may be allowed to acquire his citizenship through an appearance in the U.S. or a change of his qualification to stay in the U.S..., on the sole basis of the fact that the defendant is a citizen of the Republic of Marshall Islands as a citizen

In addition, the fact-finding reply by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the past 10 years has not applied or acquired the citizen rights of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in the name of the Republic of Korea (English name omitted) in the English name of the defendant through the court of the Republic of Korea or internal angle, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands is in issuance of a machine-reader passport which does not begin from 2003 to 02 "02" or other serial numbers of other numerical unions, and the defendant claims that he acquired the citizen rights of the Republic of the Marshall Islands in 196. Thus, the above fact-finding reply cannot be readily concluded that the defendant is not a citizen right of the Republic of Korea

Rather, according to the “certificate of fact of entry and departure” submitted by the Defendant as the title of reference document related to nationality on September 23, 2013, it is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant entered the Republic of Korea on August 6, 1998 with the passport of the Republic of Korea (the passport number omitted) of the Republic of Korea on August 6, 1998, and left the Republic of Korea on September 22, 1998. The prosecutor pointed out the possibility of forging the said Marshall Islands, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In short, in a criminal trial, where the issue is whether the defendant holds the nationality of the Republic of Korea, as the premise for applying the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea to the defendant, the prosecutor bears the burden of proving that the defendant has the nationality of the Republic of Korea until now.

2) Individual determination on facts charged

Since the defendant is a foreigner, the crime of this case constitutes the crime of a foreigner who commits a crime outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, and in addition to the crimes listed in subparagraphs 1 through 7 of Article 5 of the Criminal Act, the Criminal Act may not apply to the crime of a foreigner outside the territory of the Republic of Korea. Furthermore, even if the crime of a foreigner is committed outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, the Criminal Act shall apply in cases where the crime is committed against the Republic of Korea or the citizens of the Republic of Korea, but it shall not apply in cases where the crime is committed against the Republic of Korea or the prosecution or execution of sentence is exempted by the law of the place of the act in the proviso of Article 6.

A) The possession of murder and the attempted abandonment of a dead body

There is no jurisdiction over the charge of murder against the victim non-indicted 4 of the Republic of Korea and the charge of attempted abandonment of the body, as it does not fall under the main sentence of Articles 5 and 6 of the Criminal Act. As to the attempted abandonment of the body against the victim non-indicted 1, the Criminal Act cannot be applied. Although the victim is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, there is no provision punishing the act of abandonment in the amended Criminal Code of the Philippines submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no proof of the prosecutor on the fact that the act of abandonment constitutes a crime under the laws of the Republic of Korea. Thus, there

B) The point of robbery

In the case of robbery, since the victim non-indicted 1 is a citizen of the Republic of Korea, in principle, the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea is applied in accordance with the main sentence of Article 6 of the Criminal Act. According to Article 294 subparagraph 1 of the amended Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea, robbery constitutes a crime under the law of the place where the act was committed, and there are no grounds for exemption from prosecution or execution of punishment. Thus, this does not

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea is not applicable since he was rendered not guilty verdict on December 10, 2009 with respect to the above crime through the local trial procedure in the Philippines, and thus, he falls under the proviso of the same Article.

The Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides that the same crime shall not be repeatedly punished (the latter part of Article 13(1) of the Constitution). However, since the effect of the prohibition against double Jeopardy is subject to the same jurisdiction only, it does not take effect against a foreign judgment. Article 7 of the Criminal Act of the Republic of Korea provides that “The punishment may be mitigated or remitted to a person who has been wholly or partially executed by a crime in a foreign country” (Article 7) provides that the execution of conviction received from a foreign country as a cause of voluntary reduction or exemption of punishment, taking into account

The purport of Article 7 of the Criminal Act and the proviso of Article 6 of the Criminal Act that provides that the execution of a sentence in a foreign country is merely a cause for voluntary reduction or exemption of punishment at the discretion of the court, and that Article 6 of the Criminal Act does not apply to the case where “in the event of exemption from prosecution or execution of sentence” is considered to have taken into account the conditions of prosecution, such as filing of a complaint subject to victim’s complaint, or the provisions on relative precedent, and it is difficult to view that it includes the case where a defendant was indicted at the place of expression of the text and text and received a verdict of not guilty after being acquitted, even if he/she received a judgment of not guilty as to

Defendant asserts that the sentence may be mitigated or exempted pursuant to Article 7 of the Criminal Act because he/she had been detained for not less than two years in the Philippines because he/she had already been detained. However, Article 7 of the Criminal Act is merely a discretionary reduction or exemption, and Article 7 of the same Act refers to a case where he/she has actually been sentenced to imprisonment or a fine, etc. by a conviction of a foreign court. As such, the circumstance that Defendant was detained in the state of detention in the Philippines cannot be deemed as a requirement for application of Article 7 of the Criminal Act.

C) The attempted murder of robbery

The Korean Criminal Code applies to nationals and foreigners who have committed a crime in the territory of the Republic of Korea (Article 2 of the Criminal Code), and the term "crimes in the territory of the Republic of Korea" in this context means any act or result, which is sufficient in the territory of the Republic of Korea.

The victim non-indicted 3 transferred the amount of KRW 10 million to the national bank account, which is a domestic bank in the name of the defendant 2's domestic bank in Korea. Even though the place where the defendant in collusion with the non-indicted 2 and the defendant 2 committed assault and intimidation against the victim non-indicted 3 is outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, the defendant committed a crime in the territory of the Republic of Korea inasmuch as the defendant committed a crime in the Republic of Korea, as long as the receipt of force payments, which is part of the elements of attempted robbery, was conducted outside the territory of the Republic of Korea, as above, so the defendant committed a crime in the Republic of Korea. As to this part of the facts charged,

3) Sub-determination

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged and sentenced a single punishment by deeming it as concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, since there is no jurisdiction in Korea on the grounds as seen above, and thus, it should be sentenced to the judgment of the dismissal of prosecution pursuant to Article 327 subparagraph 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the above facts charged, and the judgment of the court below should be reversed in its entirety.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as to the remaining facts charged except that of murder and attempted abandonment of a dead body is still meaningful, so it shall be judged below.

B. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant 1

The court below found the defendant guilty of attempted robbery and robbery by taking into account the following facts: (a) the defendants solicited victims who did not have any reason or necessity to be the place to commit the crime in accordance with the advance plan; (b) the Defendants prepared the criminal tools, such as machine gun and rifle, etc. in advance; and (c) Nonindicted 2 conspiredd the victims Nonindicted 4 and 1 with the direct engine gun to the extent that they could have been seen as those of those who observed the crime of unexpected club dues; (d) the Defendants did not escape twice and twice; (e) the opportunity to escape from Nonindicted 2 did not escape; and (e) the Defendants did not have any interest in the motive to commit the crime any longer; and (e) there was sufficient motive to attract the crime in light of the economic condition at the time of the defendants; and (e) there was sufficient motive to commit the crime.

In full view of the following facts, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there was no error as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, in so determining, by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.

① According to the Defendant’s statement, the Defendant committed a pecuniary conflict with Nonindicted 1, such as: (a) the victim Nonindicted 1 engaged in the business of running in Nonindicted 5 and entertainment in the Philippines; (b) the occurrence of a dispute arising in criminal cases; (c) from September 2006 to February 2, 2007, the Defendant provided an interpretation at least five to six times for the victim Nonindicted 1; (d) the said victim did not fully pay the interpretation cost promised and did not compensate the Defendant for the money paid on behalf of the Defendant in relation to the issue of securing recreation machinery; and (e) there was a fact that the Defendant talked about the monetary relationship with the victim Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 (Evidence No. 1: 496 pages of evidence record); and (e) in light of Nonindicted 2’s statement, etc., the Defendants and Nonindicted 2 gave a customer his life at the time of casino.

② The Defendant asserted that he had the money he received from Nonindicted 1, thereby deceiving the said victim as a sales of used cars and deceiving the said victim into a down payment. The Defendant did not make any such statement at the investigative agency, but rather attempted to commit fraud later by using the number of persons who attempted to commit the crime. While the first plan was to take Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 1 of the Philippines driver Nonindicted 1 into the place to commit the crime, and made intimidation, the first plan was to put the victim Nonindicted 3, who was not anticipated by the victim Nonindicted 1, she took the same place on the wind of Nonindicted 3. At home, Nonindicted 1 brought the victim Nonindicted 250,58, 494 of the evidence record) while making a telephone call with Nonindicted 2 in the process of coming to the victim, and it was stated that he sent the victim Nonindicted 3 along with the victim Nonindicted 3 (Evidence 1, 458, 494 of the evidence record).

③ In addition to the Defendant’s statement as to whether the Defendant conspireds in advance to commit the instant crime, Nonindicted 2 expressed that in his criminal case on the instant case, Nonindicted 2 expressed that the Defendant would not be able to properly improve the case for economic difficulties. In the event that the Defendant had already been established before 3 days prior to the commission of the crime, in coloring the object of the crime, Nonindicted 2 would act to assist the Defendant by getting the victims to gather, and that Nonindicted 2 would take the role of aiding the Defendant (Evidence No. 4 right 236 pages of the evidence record). In addition, Nonindicted 2 stated that the Defendant had been urged to drive money to pay money to Nonindicted 1 in order to raise money (Evidence No. 1 right 527 pages of the evidence record). Defendant 2 also stated that the Defendant had died on 10 days from the date of the commission of the crime by Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 2, and that Nonindicted 2 would have died on 14 days from the date of the crime.

④ Since the victim Nonindicted 2 went out of the Republic of Korea after the total attack against the victim Nonindicted 1, the Defendant possessed a betting gun (institutional gun) and Defendant 2 continued for a considerable period of time due to the fact that Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 conspiredd to gather a crime, such as the Defendant’s assertion, even if Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 were presumed to have attempted to commit a crime, the Defendant did not appear to have been able to observe the safety of the person in possession and escape from the scene of the crime, despite having been able to escape from the scene of the crime.

⑤ The victim Nonindicted Party 1 and the Defendants and Nonindicted Party 2 are only the Defendant. If the Defendant was not the victim, it is difficult to see the victim’s day-to-day driving, or to prepare a contract related to the second and second trading, regardless of whether the victim’s day-to-day driving is in fact, and there is no reason to see it as the place of crime. Even if the Defendant’s statement is based on the Defendant’s statement, allowing Nonindicted Party 4 to enter the place of residence is the Defendant.

C. Determination on Defendant 2’s grounds of appeal

1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

As seen earlier, the lower court deemed that the Defendants conspired to commit the crime, and found the Defendants guilty of robbery and murder.

In light of the circumstances, such as the reasoning of the court below, which are duly admitted and investigated by evidence, and the following circumstances in the front line, the court below’s aforementioned determination is just, and there is no error as alleged by the defendant.

① On June 27, 2007, the Defendant was arrested at the entry site of Incheon International Airport on July 3, 2007, and was examined by a public prosecutor on July 3, 2007, and Nonindicted 2 met the Defendant with “ around 20:00 on March 4, 2007, which was the day before the crime was committed, Nonindicted 2 responded to the Defendant that he was aware of the fact that he was aware of the fact that he was the victim of Nonindicted 1’s sexual traffic with money for the purpose of deceptioning the vehicle, and that around 500,00 won was needed to make the Defendant’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s her son’s her son’s her her son’s her her son.

② After the above statement, the Defendant asserted that he was not guilty of having actively denied the conspiracy, and that he was forced to appoint an attorney-at-law and receive monetary compensation from Nonindicted 2. However, the above statement is not a favorable content for Nonindicted 2 to the extent that Nonindicted 2 would have come to the meeting, and it is considerably concrete in making a false statement after the fact.

③ Defendant 1, at the same time before the commission of the crime, deemed that the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was in place at the victim Nonindicted Party 1’s house, and Defendant 1 told the victim Nonindicted Party 1 that he was sitting in the table table or room and talked with the victim Nonindicted Party 1. Defendant 1 would receive money even if the victim Nonindicted Party 1 was aware of the money, rather, Defendant 1 stated that “I am at the seat of the victim. I am at the seat of bucks. I am at the seat of bucks. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am. I am.). The Defendant stated that there was a little amount of money in which the Defendant “

④ Defendant 1 stated that Nonindicted 2 had a gun shootd on the victim Nonindicted 1, and that Nonindicted 3 had a gun scam on the head of the Defendant immediately after the escape, and that the victim Nonindicted 3 had a gun scam on the head of the Defendant. Also, it is recognized that the Defendant stated to the effect that “If the Defendant was aware that the victim Nonindicted 1 was at the place of crime due to the vehicle trade, he may live in the victim.” If the Defendant was aware of only that the victim Nonindicted 1 was at the place of crime due to the vehicle trade, it would be natural that the two persons were present in the front, and did not make a decision on the situation at a very scam and scam. However, it would be difficult to interpret that the Defendant was already aware of the framework of the overall crime.

2) As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

In light of the fact that two victims caused a very serious result in the crime of this case, i.e., the engine gun, and the defendant planned the crime in advance with other accomplices for the purpose of taking money and valuables, and attempted to conceal the crime by suggesting the body, and did not receive a letter from the victims' bereaved family members, it is inevitable to punish the defendant with heavy criminal punishment corresponding to his liability.

However, the degree of defendant's participation cannot be deemed to be excessive compared to other accomplices, and the defendant's early arrest and seven-year punishment has already been finalized for the crime of attempted robbery during a series of crimes. Each crime in the judgment of the court below is in the relation of attempted robbery and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In addition, considering all of the sentencing conditions, such as the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, occupation, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, it is unfair that the defendant's punishment imposed by the court below is too excessive. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is reasonable, and this part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows after pleading.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and its evidence recognized by this court is as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below except for the addition of “1. Philippines Criminal Act” in part of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court below and the summary of the evidence [Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act] as follows. As such, the summary of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment of the court

part concerning the modification of terms

① The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment: (a) Item 1 of the same crime of the lower judgment is as follows: “The Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 2, murdered Nonindicted 4, murdered the victim Nonindicted 1, and took money and valuables by force after murdering the victim Nonindicted 1,” and the Defendants conspired with Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 1, murdered the victim Nonindicted 4; and subsequently murdered the victim Nonindicted 1 in collusion with Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 1; and (b) subsequently, the Defendants took money and valuables by force in collusion with Nonindicted 2 in collusion with Nonindicted 2.”

② The facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment: (a) the title of the lower judgment is deemed to be “a crime committed by Defendant 2’s attempted abandonment of the dead body”; and (b) each alteration to “Defendant 2, in collusion with Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 1,” in the first instance of the said criminal facts (the fourth instance of the lower judgment).

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: the first sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (Taking Robberys and Selection of Life Reserve) of the Criminal Act, Article 342, the first sentence of Article 338, and Article 30 (Attempted Robberys and Selection of Life Reserve) of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant 2: the first sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (Murder of Robberys, Selection of Punishment for Life), Article 250 (1), Article 30 (Selection of Murders, Selection of Punishment for Life) of the Criminal Act, Article 162, Article 161 (1), and Article 30 (Attempted Abandonment of Death) of the Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 2: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as a person selects an imprisonment for life with heavy robbery, another punishment shall not be imposed)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as the punishment and the nature of the crime have been selected for life for the most severe robbery, no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant 2: Article 53 of the Criminal Act and Article 55(1)2 of the former Criminal Act (wholly amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter the same shall apply) (However, the upper limit of imprisonment shall be 15 years in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act)

Reasons for sentencing

Defendant 1 is a co-principal who plans to commit this case with other co-offenders and takes the roles of each co-principal, and has committed an act of cutting off the life of a person who is unable to alter his money and valuables for the purpose of forcibly taking advantage of his relationship with the victim non-indicted 1. In particular, the above defendant has performed an important and conclusive role in inducing the victim to commit the crime, taking advantage of his relation with the victim non-indicted 1, and does not seem to have any reflective attitude while avoiding his responsibility, and did not receive any use from the victims who are unable to engage in life cleaning and live there. In the case of robbery, the statutory punishment for the crime of robbery is not only death and life imprisonment, but also life imprisonment and life imprisonment, and if the punishment is mitigated after taking account of the following factors: the maximum punishment cannot be deemed as equivalent to his liability; the defendant's motive and condition for committing the crime; the defendant's family relation; the defendant's age, the motive and condition of the crime; the motive and condition of the crime; and the circumstances of the crime after being sentenced to imprisonment.

As seen earlier, Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to the same sentence as the Disposition in consideration of all the grounds for sentencing.

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

Of the facts charged against Defendant 1, the gist of the murder and attempted abandonment of the body is that Defendant 1 conspired with Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 2 murdered Nonindicted 4, and subsequently, attempted to abandon the body of Nonindicted 4 and 1 for me, but attempted to abandon the body of Nonindicted 4 and 1 for me, and each attempted attempted to do so. As seen earlier, each of the facts charged constitutes a case where Korea does not have jurisdiction, and thus, the prosecution therefor is dismissed in accordance with Article 327 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon Sung-won (Presiding Judge)

Note 1) Under section 1, the pertinent Defendant is named as “Defendant” and the remaining Defendant is identified only in the name of the Defendant.