2019Gohap4

(a) Robbery (the name of the crime partially recognized against Defendant A, and the robbery;

Article 2)

(b) An attempted robbery (an attempted robbery which is recognized against Defendant A by the name of the crime;

Assistance)

(c) Murder reserve;

(d) Fraud;

E. Violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act

1. B

2. A;

Execution (prosecutions, public trial), last leaps (public trial)

Attorney Jeong Han-chul (Presiding Justice for Defendant B)

Attorney Lee Chang-soo (for the defendant A)

August 20, 2019

Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for life and by imprisonment for 30 years, respectively.

Seized evidence Nos. 5 through 9, 11, 18, 19, 30, 32, 33, 35, 40, 41, 42, 65, and 67 shall be forfeited from Defendant B, and evidence Nos. 45, 53, 55, 59, 61, 62, and 64 shall be forfeited from Defendant A, respectively.

2,507,250 won shall be additionally collected from Defendant B.

Defendant B shall be ordered to pay the amount equivalent to the above additional collection charge.

Of the facts charged against Defendant A, each of the charges against Defendant A shall be acquitted.

The summary of the judgment of innocence on the defendant A shall be published.

Criminal history room)

"Criminal Power"

On April 12, 2013, Defendant B was sentenced to three years of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for the main building and fire prevention in the Gunsan Branch of the Jeonju District Court on April 12, 2013, and the judgment was finalized on April 20, 2013. On November 7, 2014, when the same court was under suspension of execution, Defendant B was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for six months and medical treatment and custody on February 11, 2015 and completed the execution of each of the above punishment in the Port Office on July 16, 2018.

"Criminal Facts"

[Relationship between Defendants]

Defendant B is the head of a marina office affiliated with a business trip site, and Defendant A is the head of the business office of the business trip site to which Defendant B belongs.

Defendant B released from a port prison on July 16, 2018, and around that time, Defendant B, at the “C” website mainly used by male same-sexs, reported and contacted Defendant A with an advertisement that recruited Defendant A’s business office, and came to know of it. From September 2018 to September 2018, Defendant B was working as a marina branch office at Defendant A’s business office and engaged in sexual traffic against male same-sexs.

Defendant B’s studio from Defendant A, after hearing the phrase that the business trip log (sexual traffic) will be more good when it comes to the business in Gangnam-gu, Seoul. From October 7, 2018 to October 7, 2018, Defendant B started to run the business trip log in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government. At that time, Defendant B started to be aware of the complaint against his parents, family problems, and concerns with Defendant B.

【Written Crimes】

1. criminal motive;

Defendant B: (a) was sexually abused by his father of his father; (b) was divorced by her father during military service; (c) was neglected from her father; (d) was suspected of his father at the time of the present state building and fire-prevention incident; (d) was forced to hospitalize himself to her at the mental hospital; and (e) was aware that her father at the time of the present state building and fire-prevention incident, he was unable to live a normal life after being hospitalized with her mental hospital; (e) was willing to give economic assistance upon being released from the prison; and (e) was unable to give her father at all economic assistance after being released from the prison on July 2018; and (e) was able to have a strong objection against her father, the father, who was the father; and (e) caused the murder of the above Defendants B; and (e) was able to have the victim’s money and valuables by taking advantage of his father, and (e) the above Defendants B did so.

2. The process of preparing crimes;

Defendant A sent an Internet website address link to Defendant B, including “F case” and “G case,” to Defendant B, on the cruel method of committing murder, and solicited Defendant B to commit a crime by informing the victim E of the method of murdering the body after murdering and the method of treating the body of the body of the murder, etc. On the other hand, Defendant B searched the criminal tool to be used for committing robbery at the Internet site and sent the Internet site address links to Defendant B with the message, and had Defendant B purchase the tools of crime, such as knife, knife, watch, tape, saw, saw, surgery, etc., to be used for advising the victim. Defendant A also purchased the knife knife to use the body of the victim and then damage the body of the victim. After the preparation for the crime was completed, Defendants B and B agreed to purchase the knife on August 28, 2012 with the agreement of Defendant B on December 28, 2018.

On December 28, 2018, at around 16:55, the Defendants: (a) 19:10 on the same day, she was on the house of Defendant B, the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Seocho-gu”) and she was in the front of the victim’s house at around 23:00 on the same day, when she was on board a high speed bus for military mountain operation at around 19:10 on the same day; (b) she arrived at a military rapid bus terminal at around 22:11 on the same day; and (c) she moved from the taxi to the front of the victim’s house at around 23:0 on the same day.

3. The Defendants’ robbery of the victim E around December 28, 2018.

From the 23:00 on December 28, 2018, at the house of the victim E (65 years of age), the Defendants: (a) taken the knife inside the victim’s house; (b) took the knife inside the bank; and (c) took the victim’s right-hand knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k to the victim’s.

Defendant A transferred the victim, who was under such contact as above, into the victim’s house, and was unemployed, along with Defendant B, to the safe cremation room, and sought money and valuables to take lectures by returning to the victim’s house. On the other hand, Defendant A sent the victim with air conditioners to Defendant B.

Defendant B added a strub to the main electronic body of the victim, mixed with water, and put the victim’s face into the victim’s face. The Defendants are walking back from the side of each victim’s body. Defendant B, with the wire ropes prepared in advance, strokeed the victim’s strokeing type, was strokeed from the victim’s body, and 40,000 won in cash and one M card in the victim’s name were deducted from the victim’s wall.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim and forcibly taken the property of the victim.

4. Defendants’ fraud using E-credit cards and violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act

The Defendants: (a) murdered Defendant B, and conspireded to have half of the proceeds of the crime by taking the money and other valuables of Defendant B, and (b) took part in murdered Party E, and took part in one credit card in the name of E.

According to the above public offering, around 15:43 on December 29, 2018, Defendant B purchased the two horses at around 15:43, 2018, which was operated by the victim’s name unsound, and Defendant B paid KRW 3,400 to his/her employees in the name of the above convenience store by suggesting that he/she is the legitimate holder, and paying KRW 3,400 from around that time to December 31, 2018 in accordance with the method of use notified by Defendant A, as described in the attached Table 1, Defendant A used the E’s MM card in total of 10 times, and acquired KRW 2,970,80 in total, and Defendant A received KRW 670 and KRW 500 in the name of Defendant B bank from December 31, 2018 to December 31, 2018 in accordance with the distribution ratio of criminal proceeds promised with Defendant B in advance.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to use the credit card in the name of E and acquired the total amount of KRW 2,970,80.

【Criminal Crimes】

1. The process of preparing crimes;

After killing E as above, from around 20:00 on December 29, 2018 to 24:00 on the same day, the Defendants discussed in the house of Defendant B located in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D heading D D heading I about a plan for future crimes and a scheme for raising funds for escape. From that standpoint, Defendant A stated to the effect that Defendant B continues to commit robbery against the female employees at the Minba shop or the elderly and the elderly who can easily control in the future, and Defendant B attempted to kill the female employees at the Minba shop and the elderly and the elderly and the elderly, etc. and to receive money and valuables from them.

On the other hand, at around 13:35 on January 2, 2019, Defendant A sent Defendant B a link to the address of “R”, which is an Internet site where he can search for a marina-sing shop, to Defendant B by using H message, and said at the above site the object of the crime was expressed.

2. Defendant B’s murder preparation against the Victim S around January 2, 2019

Defendant B, in coloring the subject of the crime in “R, determined that he was subject to the crime of “T” operated by the victim S(n, 45 years of age). On January 2, 2019, Defendant B contacted the victim on the basis of the victim around 22:00 on the same day, and promised to enter the victim at around 18:41 on the same day.

At around 22:10 on January 2, 2019, Defendant B entered the workplace with a knife, knife, knife, hearing tape, and wall that are to be used for committing the crime, and inspected the situation while communicating with the victim. However, Defendant B did not commence its execution because it was difficult to control the victim due to a narrow relation in the space of the location.

As a result, Defendant B prepared for the purpose of killing the victim.

3. Defendant B’s attempted robbery with respect to the victim W and aiding and abetting Defendant A around January 3, 2019

On December 31, 2018, at around 01:19, Defendant A purchased a Ho-credit frame to Defendant B and used it to commit a crime, and sent an Internet website ('X') address link that can purchase a Ho-credit framework to H message. Defendant B purchased a Ho-credit frame to be used for committing a crime on the above link sent by Defendant A.

At around 05:00 on January 3, 2019, Defendant A sent H message to Defendant B, sent out one-person marina shop to female employees, spawn out the Ho-credit framework, and threatened female employees’ face at drinking by drinking, and informed Defendant A of the method of killing female employees to conceal the crime.

Defendant B, on the “R” website, set “YY” operated by the victim W (at 28 years of age) as the subject of the crime, and promised to contact the victim at around 22:00 on the same day on January 3, 2019 and around 09:54.

Defendant B entered a bank with a knife, credit frame, Cheong tape, and lock, etc. used for committing the crime on January 3, 2019, and entered “YY” in Seoul Gangnam-gu Office 2tel AA, Gangnam-gu, Seoul. Defendant B attempted to murder the victim by a knife with a knife that was prepared in advance and continuously preparing to kill the victim with a knife with a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, a knife, and a knife.

As a result, Defendant B tried to take the victim’s property by taking the victim’s property and murdered the victim, but the crime was committed, and Defendant A knowingly assisted and assisted the method by H message.

4. around January 5, 2019, the robbery against the victim AB, the victim AC and aiding and abetting the defendant A around January 5, 2019

Defendant A, as described in the above paragraph (3), proposed that Defendant B had failed to commit the crime and continued to commit the crime to Incheon. Accordingly, Defendant B moved to Incheon around January 3, 2019. On January 4, 2019, Defendant B returned to the Michuhol-gu Incheon AD Dong, citing a bank with the commission of the crime, and returned to the Incheon Michuhol-gu Dong, Incheon. While the object of the crime was colored, but it was impossible to find the object of the crime, and eventually, Defendant A did not commence its execution.

On January 5, 2019, at around 04:00, Defendant A sent H message to Defendant B and waiting for Defendant B to start a robbery or a sponsor. At the time of women or the aged, Defendant A sent a spons to the Internet press address of the content that the sponsord female employees of convenience store with a deadly weapon and sent a knife to Defendant B to commit the crime, and notified Defendant A that the knife could easily be successful in committing the crime.

At around 13:00 on January 5, 2019, Defendant A provided Defendant B with a knife with a female or senior citizen as a target of crime, and sent H message called the strong withdrawal of money and valuables to Defendant B. Defendant B provided a bank with a view to committing a crime, such as a knife, and a knife, etc., at the fele in which he was silent at around 14:00 on the same day, and Defendant B used a bank with a view to committing a crime such as a knife, etc., and colored the object of crime.

Defendant B 16:43 on January 5, 201, 16: the victim AB card knife AF and the victim AB had knife the above knife at the victim's knife and 81 years old, and tried to commit robbery against the above victim after discovering the victim's knife at the victim's knife and knife the knife inside the above victim's knife, and then without deducting the victim's knife from the above knife at the victim's knife's knife and knife inside the above knife card, the victim's knife knife knife knife knife knife knife, and the victim's knife knife knife.

Accordingly, Defendant B murdered victims, took the victims’ property by force, and Defendant A assisted and assisted Defendant B to strengthen or maintain the resolution of crime by knowing that Defendant B murdered victims and took the victims’ property by force.

5. Fraud using a debit card under the name of Defendant B B or violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act

On January 5, 2019, at around 19:10, Defendant B purchased hamb and drinking water from a convenience store operated by the 21-luminous distribution station in the 21-luminous area in the light name of the victim, and paid 10,220 won of the purchase price by presenting the IB K enterprise card in the name of AB, such as the above 4, as he was the lawful holder, as described in the attached Table 2, from around that time to January 6, 2019, Defendant B used the CB card in the name of AB and the C check card in the total of seven times as shown in the attached Table 2, and acquired 206,950 won in total.

6. Preliminary homicide against Defendant B’s AJ around January 6, 2019

Defendant B, in the “R”, was determined to be subject to the crime of “AK where the victim A (n, 49 years of age) was in office as a marina branch, and the victim contacted the victim on January 6, 2019 and made a promise to be marinad around 18:00 on the same day.

Defendant B, at around 16:10 on January 6, 2019, was in possession of a room consisting of knife, knife, knife, hearing tape, and lockets, and was administered in order to examine in advance the surrounding area of the above marina business located in Busan Jin-gu AL, Busan.

As a result, Defendant B prepared for the purpose of killing the victim.

Summary of Evidence

【Criminal Crimes in Seocheon-si】

1. Defendant B’s legal statement (limited to Defendant B);

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. The legal statement of the witness B (limited to the defendant A);

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Death certificate (E, No. 3), on-site identification report (No. 8), the details of use of the E card in the name of E, the details of account transaction (No. 45), the IBK Bank account transaction (No. 46), the Ma Card’s name (No. 47), the Ma Card’s M Card’s M Card’s M Card’s M Card’s e-ray photograph, receipt, etc. (No. 63), the off-site photograph (No. 65), the on-site photograph (No. 76, 78, 80, 98, 100), each gene assessment statement (No. 93, 95, 245, 252), the details of the account transaction in the name of victim E in the name of E, No. 112, B’s financial account and credit card transaction (No. 14,16G card’s mobile phone reply No. 165, A17,15,15,14,15,14,144,14,14,144 of AI reply;

【Crimes in Paragraph 2 of Article 2】

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Statement of the police statement of S (169 No. 169);

1. H message received and sent by B and A (No. 278);

【Criminal facts of Paragraph 3 of this Article】

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The legal statement of the witness B (limited to the defendant A);

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Written Statement of the Police (No. 189 No. 189);

1. H message received and sent by B and A (No. 278);

1. A photo, etc. (No. 190 in the order), a photograph, etc. (No. 190 in the order), a seizure protocol (No. 191 in the order), a medical certificate of injury (W, No. 193 in the order), and a medical certificate (W, No. 194 in the order);

[Criminal facts of paragraphs 4 and 5]

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. The legal statement of the witness B (limited to the defendant A);

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Each seizure protocol (No. 76, 280, 281), copy of the autopsy report (AB), copy of the autopsy report (AB), the autopsy report (AC No. 143), the autopsy report (AC No. 234), the victim AB autopsy report (273), the victim AC autopsy report (C autopsy report No. 274), the money and valuables taken by force in the Incheon crime (177), the investigation report (199), the investigation report (200), each gene assessment report (No. 208, 245, 279) and each gene assessment report (No. 208, 205, 279).

[Criminal facts of Paragraph 6]

1. Defendant B’s legal statement

1. Statement of the police statement to AJ (No. 171 No. 171);

1. H message received and sent by B and A (No. 278);

【Prior Records at the Time of Sales】

1. Criminal records, etc. inquiry reports (B), copies of judgments, etc.;

[Defendant A’s defense counsel argued that, apart from the warrant of search, seizure and verification of digital information when the investigative agency extracted the H message received by the Defendants from the mobile phone after the seizure of Defendant A’s mobile phone, the search and seizure warrant for the digital information should be additionally issued, so the “H message sent and received by B and A” in No. 278 of the evidence list constitutes illegally collected evidence and the “H message” in the Criminal Procedure Act is inadmissible in accordance with Article 308-2.

However, if the object of seizure is ‘electronic information', in principle, seizure should be conducted by determining the scope of memory information and printing out or reproducing it, but it is impossible to print out or copy it within the scope or it is considerably difficult to achieve the purpose of seizure.

When it is recognized that "storage media itself" can be seized (Articles 219 and 106 of the Criminal Procedure Act), and in case of seizure of "storage media itself," a series of processes of searching for seizure and printing out "electronic information related to suspected facts" in writing or copying it in file format constitutes a single warrant-based seizure (see Supreme Court en banc Order 201Mo1839, Jul. 16, 2015; Supreme Court Order 201Mo1839, Jul. 16, 2015; Supreme Court Order 2011Mo1839, Jul. 16, 2015). If a warrant for seizing "storage media itself" is issued, a separate warrant for seizing "electronic information" need not be issued. The above assertion by Defendant A's counsel cannot be accepted)

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant B: The main sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 338 (the commission of robbery against Victim E, the commission of robbery against AB and AC, the selection of life style), Article 342 and the main sentence of Article 338 (the commission of robbery) of the Criminal Act, Articles 255 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act (the commission of robbery) of each Criminal Act, Articles 347 (1) and 30 (the commission of robbery under attached Table 1), Article 70 (1) 4 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Article 30 (the commission of robbery) of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347 (1) of the Criminal Act (the selection of force credit cards, the selection of imprisonment with prison labor, the selection of each type of imprisonment with prison labor, Article 70 (1) 40) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act)

(b) Defendant A: The main sentence of Article 338 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, the main sentence of Article 338, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 342, the main sentence of Article 338, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 342, the main sentence of Article 338, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 70(1)4 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 (Selection of Imprisonment with Labor)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant B: Article 35 of the Criminal Act [Inasmuch as there are previous records of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which has completed the execution of punishment on July 16, 2018, each of the crimes of murder preliminary, fraud, and each of the crimes of violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act]

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendant A: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)2 and 35(3) of each Criminal Act (as to the crime of accessories, the crime of aiding and abetting robbery, and the crime of aiding and abetting robbery, and the crime of aiding and abetting robbery)

1. Punishment for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (i.e., life imprisonment for the robbery of victims E with the largest punishment and punishment)

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (i.e., life imprisonment for robbery with the largest punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant A: From among Articles 53 and 55(1)2(2) of the Criminal Act (hereinafter referred to as “the grounds for a two-dimensional sentence”), the circumstances favorable to Defendant A are considered.

1. Confiscation;

(a) Defendant B: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

(b) Defendant A: Article 8(1)1 and 2 (No. 62) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment, and Article 48(1)1 (s) of the Criminal Act

[In addition to the seized articles sentenced to forfeiture in the disposition, the prosecutor presented his opinion that the articles of seizure are subject to forfeiture as well. The reasons why the above seized articles are not subject to forfeiture are as follows.

(1) No evidence Nos. 1 and 2 shall be confiscated on the ground that the victim E-owned mobile phone does not belong to any person other than the offender.

② The evidence No. 16 is KRW 289,00 in cash held by Defendant B at the time of arrest. There is no specific ground to regard that the said cash falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act or is the property derived from criminal proceeds or criminal proceeds under the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment.

③ The evidence Nos. 46 through 51 is the mobile phone owned by Defendant A at the time of arrest, and was seized along with No. 45. Unlike the evidence No. 45, the evidence Nos. 46 through 51 does not have any evidence to deem that Defendant A provided or attempted to provide for each of the instant crimes. Rather, according to the “Report on the Analysis of Digital Evidence (Evidence No. 246 No. 246)”, the evidence No. 46 through 51 appears to be irrelevant to each of the instant crimes.

④ Nos. 54, 56, and 57 of the evidence is the head of the Tong and e-mail card in the name of Defendant B, which was held by Defendant A at the time of arrest. Defendant A received transfer of sales proceeds of precious metals purchased by using the credit card in the name of Defendant B’s name through the head of a Pbank in the name of Defendant B and withdrawn the transfer in cash, and the certificate No. 55 used by Defendant A is subject to confiscation. However, there is no evidence to deem that Defendant A provided or attempted to provide for each of the instant crimes.

1. Additional collection:

Defendant B: Articles 10(1) and 8(1)1 and 8(2) of the Act on Regulation and Punishment of Criminal Proceeds Concealment

[Grounds for Calculation of Additional Imposition]

① Criminal proceeds acquired by Defendant B from committing a crime in violation of each Specialized Credit Finance Business Act listed in attached Table 1: 2,970,800 won

② Criminal proceeds acquired by Defendant B from committing a crime in violation of each Specialized Credit Finance Business Act listed in attached Table 2: 206,950 won

③ Of the above criminal proceeds, money remitted by Defendant B to Defendant A: 670,500 won

(4) Additional collection charges: 2,507,250 won ( = ① 2,970,800 won + ② 206,950 won - ③ 670,500 won)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant B: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Defendant B

A. Summary of the assertion

Defendant B had weak intent or ability to discern things at the time of crime.

B. Determination

The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a biological factor and needs to be determined by the psychological factor, not by mental disorder such as mental illness or abnormal mental condition, but by mental disorder such as mental disorder, which lacks or reduces the ability to discern things and the ability to control action accordingly. Thus, even if a person with mental disorder is a person with normal ability to distinguish things at the time of committing the crime.

A mental disorder shall not be deemed a mental disorder if the person has the ability to control the act. The existence of mental disorder is a legal issue to be determined by the court in light of the purpose, etc. of the penal system, and its judgment is not necessarily bound by the court. However, the court is not necessarily bound by the opinion, and the existence of a mental disorder shall be determined independently by comprehensively taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also the data recorded in the records, such as the background, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018).

According to these legal principles, according to the evidence of this case, the defendant B was lawfully admitted and investigated by this court. The defendant B was diagnosed by 10 AP mental health department on June 5, 2012 and was diagnosed by 200 A, and his father was contracted to be hospitalized in the National Hospital on October 29, 2012 but was not hospitalized by 10 January 19, 2012. The defendant B was diagnosed by 14. The defendant B was diagnosed by 14. The defendant B had been infected by the law for 20 days on February 20, 2013 and 14. The defendant B was diagnosed by 20 days on April 12, 2013, and was sentenced to a suspension of execution for 2 years on July 13, 2015.

However, according to the notice of the result of the mental appraisal of the Medical Treatment and Custody Director, there was no disorder in brain wave test, two parts and chest radiation test, and in the psychological test, the defendant B was suspected to have a disability in the process of accident, such as scarcity, and there was an excessive assessment on father's father, and there was a deep damage accident and his father's ability to restrain shocking, and there was a limited and regular ability to scarbly scargs, and can explosion scargs, scargs, scargs, and aggressives. However, although the medical treatment was conducted under the diagnosis of scargs, there was no significant mental symptoms even at the time, and there was no mental disorder in the present, and there was no mental disorder in the present. Based on these diagnosis results, the defendant B was in a state of normal ability at the time of the crime of this case, and there was no mental disorder in the process of each of the crimes of this case.

In light of the above circumstances and the process of preparing and executing the crime at the time of each of the instant crimes, the contents of the crime, and the attitude and communication ability of Defendant B, which can be identified by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to view that Defendant B had weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes. Defendant B and the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

2. Defendant A

A. Summary of the assertion

1) The act forced Defendant B to take advantage of the abuse from Defendant B, his father, and thought Defendant B close to Defendant B, Defendant B would threaten Defendant B to report illegal marina business, and Defendant B would not murder Defendant B’s father. At the scene of the crime of Seocheoncheon, Defendant B received the H message from Defendant B and came into the victim E’s house, Defendant B knifed the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife and knife with the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife with the victim’s knife.

Defendant B continued robbery in order to raise “after committing the Domination”, so it is difficult for the other party B to easily control the robbery, to inform the other party of the method of easily suppressing the robbery, to allow him to give a container, and to give a direction to the future, and to make a Domination in the future. The Defendant A thought that he was aware of his death and, without any particular mind, to assist the Defendant B, and to inform the Defendant B of H message as stated in its reasoning.

Therefore, the defendant A's act with respect to each crime in the judgment constitutes "act forced" under Article 12 of the Criminal Code and cannot be punished.

2) The non-existence of and aiding and abetting the robbery of the robbery

Defendant A was in contact with Defendant B and was in contact with the victim E, and was not expected to completely block Defendant B from killing the victim E, his father, and there was no murderer’s intent to commit robbery against the victim E. As such, Defendant A did not intend to commit robbery. The victim E’s situation seems to be too anticipated, and only attempted as requested by Defendant B, by entering the victim E’s house.

In light of these circumstances, even though the act of the Defendant A does not constitute the "act forced" under Article 12 of the Criminal Act, the Defendant A is not the joint principal offender of the act of Western, but only the aiding and abetting offender.

B. Determination

1) As to the assertion that the act was forced

A) Relevant legal principles

An act of coercion under Article 12 of the Criminal Act refers to an act of coercion made by force of another person, such as intimidation, etc. that may not be resistanceable violence, life, or body, which means an act of coercion made by force of another person. In this context, an act of resistance-free violence means a case where, in a psychological sense, it cannot be absolutely done, a physical act of which cannot be absolutely done, or a pressure is made in ethical sense. Intimidation means a intimidation in which there is no way to prevent harm to the life and body of himself or his relatives from any other way, and coercion means to force a specific act by preventing a forced person from making free decisions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2276, Dec. 13, 193; 2007Do306, Jun. 6, 2007).

B) Specific determination

(1) Although the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of the commission of

(2) First, as to the assertion that Defendant A’s act related to the Seocheon Crime cannot be punished as coercion, it is difficult to accept this part of Defendant A’s defense counsel’s assertion for the following reasons.

① The basic purport of Defendant A’s assertion is that, although Defendant B did not demand the participation of Defendant B in the crime by directly threatening Defendant A, Defendant B received Defendant B’s H message and went into the victim E’s house at the time of his death, Defendant B attempted to help Defendant B die at the scene of the crime.

② However, Defendant A continued to attach his income source to Defendant B, who was an employee of the Marina branch, remaining after the time, and continued to engage in the same marina business as the other party of the male same-sex, and, prior to committing the crime, Defendant B passed a resolution on the crime of Defendant B by stating that “A shall be the same as his father who is not his child,” and the crime was committed by notifying Defendant B of the place where the commission of the crime was intended to purchase or directly purchase a part of the commission of the crime. The link on other murder was found on the Internet, and planned a specific method of the crime along with Defendant B by discussing what order was to commit the crime by either directly delivering it to Defendant B or informing the Defendant B of the fact that he was to commit the crime. There is no evidence to deem that Defendant B had been drinking on Defendant B before committing the crime by entering the victim’s E house.

③ After Defendant A’s entry into the victim E’s house according to Defendant B’s message, Defendant A, like the victim’s statement, could have satisfed the risk that Defendant B was satisfed to murder or satisfed. However, in a case where he was forced or unexpectedly predicted to kill Defendant B, it cannot be said that the act was forced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Do1684, Sept. 12, 1973; 72Do2585, Jan. 30, 1973; 70Do2629, Feb. 23, 1971); Defendant A took part in the crime at the scene of the crime; Defendant B took part in the crime; Defendant B took part in, or forced Defendant B to murder the victim at the same time; and Defendant B took part in, Defendant B’s murder at the same time; and Defendant B did not seem to have been forced.

(3) Next, as to the assertion that Defendant A’s act related to the crime was forced to be punished as an act, it is difficult to accept this part of Defendant A’s defense counsel’s assertion on the following grounds.

① The purport of Defendant A’s basic assertion lies in: (a) Defendant B sent a message that seems to respond to Defendant B’s criminal conduct without any choice to see whether he/she died; (b) however, immediately after the Defendant was committed, the Defendants were able to have different rooms; and (c) Defendant B was unaware of personal information, such as Defendant A’s address, other than Defendant B’s telephone number; and (d) Defendant A could easily flee if he/she was unable to have been aware of such information. Nevertheless, Defendant A, without escape to continue to engage in the same-sex relationship with Defendant B, moved along with Defendant B to Seoul, and went from August to December, 12, 200.

On December 29, 2019, the day following the arrest of each of the Defendants at night, and there was no contact between the Defendants before being arrested by the investigative agency. Defendant B stated that Defendant A was given contact only with AT or H without informing his name and telephone number (Evidence No. 1:687 pages), and that Defendant A was not well aware of the name and contact address of Defendant A after the arrest of Defendant B, and the investigative agency conducted an emergency arrest of Defendant A through a separate investigation (Evidence No. 1:72 of the Evidence No. 720-72 of the Record No. 72 of the Record). In other words, Defendant B had no specific risk of murdering Defendant A by physically discovering Defendant B after committing the crime.

③ Considering the circumstances, even if Defendant A was aware of the fear that Defendant A would be aware of being killed by Defendant B, this is merely a temporary and subjective perception, and thus, it cannot be deemed as intimidation without any way to prevent any harm to his/her own life and body.

2) As to the assertion that there is no criminal intent of robbery and aiding and abetting the crime in Western, 5)

A) Relevant legal principles

The intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as the purpose of murder or that of planned murder. Rather, it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing another person’s death due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive, but also it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant contests that there was no intention to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, whether the defendant had the intention to commit murder at the time of committing the crime ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of the objective circumstances before and after committing the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive of the crime, the existence of a deadly weapon prepared for the crime, the type and repetition of the attack, the degree of the likelihood of causing the death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do9867, Feb. 26, 2009).

A co-principal under Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, which relate to the implementation of a crime through functional control over the intent of co-processing and the intent of co-processing. Even if a person is not directly engaged in an act among the conspiracys, if it is acknowledged that he/she has functional control over the constituent elements through his/her inherent contribution to a crime rather than mere conspiracys, role, control over the progress of the crime, etc., then he/she shall be held liable as a co-principal for the crime committed by other conspiracys. In such a case, in light of all the circumstances, such as the means and manner of the crime, the number of participants and their inclinations, time and characteristics of the crime, possibility of contact with others and anticipated response to the crime in the process of the crime, etc., one of the co-offenders ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned circumstances, and one of the co-offenders ought to be determined by 201 as to the degree that he/she did not have any reasonable control over the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201201)., supra., whether he/she has been publicly recruitedd.

B) According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) The relationship between the Defendants and the situation before the commission of the crime in Seocheon

Defendant A is a person who has operated a business trip for male same-sexs. Defendant A sent a job offer advertisement to seek a marina branch office on the site of “C” around July 2018, and Defendant B reported job offer advertisements to Defendant B, sought jobs from Defendant A, and contacted Defendant A. From September 2018 to September 2018, Defendant B began to run a business trip for male same-sexs.

Defendant A said that it is possible for Defendant A to impose more money to conduct the private-use business, and Defendant B started the mast-type business upon obtaining the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D main room around October 2018. The Defendants received contact only with each other prior to that time, and they first face face-to-faced around that time.

From around that time, Defendant B started to be aware of the fact that he was sexually abusedd to Defendant B, his father, and her mother did not have a sexual intercourse with other male and female, and her mother took care of with his father after her mother was divorced. Defendant A made several times of the statement to the effect that Defendant B’s father’s complaint against her father was “I would have died of her father, not her father, but her father.” Furthermore, Defendant B was dead at the time of Defendant B’s birth, and the victim E, not her father, was living until her father, not Defendant B’s father, but her father, so far as her father was living, Defendant B’s death was her death, and she was her mother, and she was her husband and her husband, and she was her husband, and her husband was her deceased, and her husband was her husband, and her husband was her deceased. The Defendant B’s property was divided and discussed by how much how much the property of Defendant E was the victim’s property.

Defendant A searched 'F case' or 'G case', etc. on the Internet, and sent a link to the Internet site where the case was located. Defendant B asked for specific murder and body disposal methods, Defendant A sponsed sprinks with spackspackspacks, and the body was discarded with spackspackspacks, and the body was discarded with spackspackspackspacks, and the body was discarded with spackspacks, and the spackspackspackspackspackspackspackspacks, and the spackspackspackspackspackspackspackspacks, etc. The Defendants prepared a criminal tool prior to the day on which they committed the crime. At the Internet site where Defendant A used goods to be used as the crime tool, and then sent the link to Defendant B’s spackspackspacks, etc. for the purpose of using the link.

(2) The situation on the day of the commission of the

The Defendants thought that the victim E would be doubtful upon their own finding, and agreed on December 28, 2018, 2018, a gold day at the victim E’s house. Defendant B stated that the victim E was conducting a preliminary practice on December 28, 2018. The relationship between Defendant B and Defendant B 15:30 first, Defendant B went through Defendant B’s studio at around 16:20, more than 16:50, the initial promise, and the Defendants returned to the Gangnam-high speed bus terminal, and thereafter, the Defendants moved to the Gangnam-high speed bus terminal (Defendant B stated that Defendant B was conducting preliminary practice before leaving Seocheon, and Defendant A agreed to conduct preliminary practice, but Defendant B did not directly affect Defendant B’s practice, and thus, Defendant B did not directly start the criminal practice, and it did not directly start with the conclusion of whether it did not directly affect the criminal practice.

피고인들은 피해자 E의 집에 도착하여, 피고인 B이 먼저 집 안에 들어간 뒤 H 메신저로 연락하면 피고인 A도 들어가기로 하였다. 피고인 B은 먼저 집 안으로 들어가 판시 '서천 범행' 제3항 범죄사실 기재와 같이 회칼로 자고 있던 피해자 E을 찌르고 망치로 피해자 E의 머리를 때려 피해자 E을 제압하고, 청테이프로 피해자 E을 결박한 뒤, 피고인 A에게 H 메시지를 보냈다. 피고인 A은 머뭇거리다 조금 늦게 집 안으로 들어갔고, 처음에는 약간 말리러 오는 제스처를 취하였다가 어차피 죽었으나 할 수 없다는 식으로 다시 자세를 취하고는, 피고인 B이 피해자 E에 대한 고문을 쉽게 할 수 있도록 피고인 B과 함께 방바닥에 쓰러져 있던 피해자 E을 매트 위로 옮겼다. 피고인 A은 피고인 B의 요청에 따라 피고인 B에게 가지고 간 고추냉이 가루를 넘겨주었고, 피고인 B은 이를 주전자에 넣고 물과 섞은 다음 그 물을 피해자 E의 얼굴에 부었다. 이후 피고인 B이 피해자 E의 옆구리를 발로 차면서 '너도 차보라'고 하자 피고인 A도 피해자 E의 옆구리를 4~5회 발로 걷어찼다. 이후 피고인 B은 밧줄로 피고인 E의 목을 졸랐고, 피해자 E은 비구폐쇄성 질식 등으로 사망하였다.

Since then, Defendant A concealed the knife used in committing the crime by putting the knife into the bottom of the kitchen. The Defendants snife and maz around the body of the victim E with a view to removing smelling. Defendant A, along with Defendant B, released the same strings on the floor of the victim E, locked the strings, locking the key at the victim E’s house, and laid down the clothes, shoess, and shoess, etc. in the victim E’s house.

피고인들은 다음날인 2018. 12. 29. 03:00경 피해자 E의 집에서 나와 택시를 타고 익산고속버스터미널로 가서 부근 모텔에 들어가 하룻밤을 머물렀다. 피고인들은 15:00경 익산고속버스터미널로 가 고속버스를 타고 서울로 이동한 후 20:00경 피고인 B의 집으로 갔고, 그곳에서 3~4시간 정도 대화를 나누다가 피고인 A은 24:00경 피고인 B의 집을 나와 귀가하였다.

(3) Illegal use and fraud of a victim E-credit card

Even after the Defendants murdered the victim E and took a credit card with the victim E’s M credit card, Defendant A received the following H text messages, and purchased precious metal or cultural products with the cards forcibly taken to Defendant B, and sold them in other places. Upon the murder of precious metal, Defendant A given specific instructions to the effect that they should be sold from the precious metal distance near the ceiling, the ceiling, or Seoul, etc. at one place. Defendant B purchased precious metals according to the method notified by Defendant A, and then cashed KRW 670,500, a half of them, to Defendant A.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

C) Specific determination

Examining these circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in relation to the criminal intent of robbery, Defendant A, at first of all, suspected of Defendant B’s in-depth suspicion as to whether Defendant B would die of the shotus father. However, Defendant B’s complaint against the victim E, which Defendant B had been fluened, was developed by a resolution of specific murder, and Defendant B notified the method of murder from the beginning of the planning of murder and prepared for the commission of the crime at the same time, and then, Defendant B prepared for the commission of the crime while carrying out the commission of the commission of the crime at the site, there was a dolusence that Defendant B may murder the victim E. It cannot be seen as only.

Then, in relation to the principal offender of the robbery, Defendant A did not merely help Defendant B to commit the robbery, but also had Defendant B make a de facto resolution on the actual crime by informing Defendant B of the specific method of crime, and notified Defendant B of the method of murder, and several tools were directly purchased by Defendant B of the method of murder and informing Defendant B of the purchase location of the method of murder. There seems to be impossible for Defendant B to commit robbery if there was no act by Defendant A. Therefore, Defendant A had functional control over the robbery by way of inherent contribution to the robbery, and thus, Defendant A is liable for the crime of co-principal.

Finally, in relation to the principal offender of the crime related to the credit card in the name of the victim E, the defendant A notified the specific method of use to the defendant B, and received half of the profits acquired by the defendant B. Therefore, the defendant A has a functional control over the crime related to the credit card in the name of the victim E through an essential contribution, and is liable for the crime as a co-principal. The defendant A and the defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant B

A. The scope of a sentence of death penalty under law: (a) considering the fact that the death penalty for life is a serious and exceptional punishment which can be introduced by the judicial system as a severe prison punishment that deprives a human life, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only when there are special circumstances where even anyone can be deemed justifiable in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of the punishment. Therefore, in determining whether to impose death penalty, the sentence of death penalty can be justified only when it is determined through a thorough deliberation on all the matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, including the offender’s age, occupation and experience, character and behavior, intelligence, educational degree, course, family relation, existence of criminal records, relationship with the victim, motive for the crime, degree of preparation, means and method, cruel degree of the result, serious nature of the crime, the number of victims and appraisal, the depth and attitude of the crime after the crime, the degree of harm recovery, and concerns about re-offending, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 201Do219600.

이러한 법리에 따라 이 사건에서 보건대, 이 법원이 채택하여 조사한 증거들에 의하면, 우선 피고인 B에게는 유리하게 고려할 만한 사정으로, ① 피고인 B은 1987년 전 배우자와의 사이에 소생 1명씩을 두고 재혼한 부모 사이에서 첫째로 태어났고, 초등학교 때까지 성적은 중간 정도였고 다른 친구들과 다투는 모습을 보이긴 하였으나 충동조절이 되지 않는 모습을 보이지는 않은 점, ② 중학교 1학년 때 부모가 이혼하면서 피고인 B은 어머니와 함께 생활하길 원하였으나 어머니가 전 남편과의 아들을 돌보아야 한다고 하여 피고인 B의 양육을 아버지와 할머니에게 맡겼고, 그로 인하여 피고인 B은 어머니가 자신을 버렸다는 생각을 가지게 되었으며, 스트레스를 심하게 받으면 통제불능으로 흥분하고 아버지에게도 이혼한 것에 대해 욕설하는 모습을 보이기 시작한 점, ③ 피고인 B은 고등학교 때 친구가 뒤통수를 쳤다는 이유로 과도하게 흥분하여 급식판을 집어던지고 그 친구와 말리던 친구들 및 선생님까지 때리는 사고를 일으키고, 아버지가 사용하는 노트북 컴퓨터에 물을 부어놓기도 하였으며, 이후 피고인 B은 어머니 집과 아버지 집을 오가며 생활하였는데, 어머니가 데리고 있다가 싫증이 나면 아버지한테 보내고, 아버지가 싫증이 나면 어머니에게 보낸다고 느끼게 된 점, ④ 피고인 B은 2005년 AV대학교 경찰학과에 진학하였는데, 대학축제 때 주변의 많은 사람과 축제와 왔던 연예인까지 말렸음에도 과도하게 흥분하여 정신을 잃을 정도로 친구들과 큰 싸움을 벌였고, 유도부에서 운동하다가 팔을 골절당하는 상처를 입고 입원치료를 받았으며, 그 뒤로 친구와 제대로 사귀지 못하고 주로 운동하거나 티브이나 컴퓨터를 보면서 소일하게 된 점, ⑤ 피고인 B은 2006년 어머니와 점쟁이 지인이 '귀신이 붙은 것 같으니 천도제를 올려야 한다'고 하여 3차례 천도제를 지내기도 한 점, ⑥ 피고인 B은 2008년 군 제대 후 대학을 자퇴하고 2009년부터 2011년까지 서울 고모집에 가서 커피숍 아르바이트를 하면서 생활하였는데, 이에 적응하지 못하고 2011. 3.경 다시 아버지 집으로 내려왔고, 이후 어머니 의사에 따라 2011. 11, 19.경 내림굿을 받고 법당을 차려 무당일을 한 점, ⑦ 그 후 피고인 B은 앞서 본 바와 같이 두 건의 범죄를 저지르고 심신미약을 인정받아 형이 감경되고 치료감호가 선고되기도 하였고, 여러 차례에 걸쳐 국립공주병원에 입원하여 정신분열병 진단을 받아 치료를 받기도 한 점, ⑧ 이상과 같이 부모가 이혼한 중학교 1학년 14세 때부터 만 32세가 될 때까지 피고인 B에게는 결손가정으로 인한 애정결핍과 그로 인한 정신장애 등이 생겼음에도 가족들의 관심 부족으로 제대로 해소되지 못하고 쌓여만 갔고, 여기에다가 공범인 피고인 A도 가세하여 '피해자 E과 애미년, 고모년 등 집사 가족이 자신의 원래 친부모를 죽이고 재산을 독차지한 후 부모 행세를 한 것'이라는 의심을 지지하여 주자, 피고인 B은 포항교도소에서 출소한 2018. 7. 16.부터 불과 5개월여 만에 자신의 친아버지인 피해자 E을 살해하는 서천 범행을 저지르게 된 점, ⑨ 피고인 B은 2018. 12. 29. 피고인 A에게 익산시 소재 모텔에 설치된 씨씨티비를 보고는 '찝찝하고 불안하다'는 내용으로, '피해자 E의 디엔에이를 채취하여 검사를 의뢰해 볼 것 그랬나'라고 하면서 자신이 잘못한 것인지 의심을 표하는 내용으로, '어머니에 대한 살인은 피고인 A이 대신해주면 안되냐고 묻는 내용으로 각 H 문자메시지를 보냈고, 그 이후에도 자신이 잘못 생각하고 아버지를 살해한 것이 아닌가 의심하다가 곧 친아버지도 아니니 잘 죽였다고 합리화하는 H 문자메시지를 수회 보내기도 하여, 서천 범행을 후회하는 듯한 태도를 보이기도 한 점, ⑩ 서천 범행 이후의 범행도 뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 피고인 A에게 거듭거듭 여러 가지를 확인한 후 개시하고도 판시와 같이 범행을 수회 실패하였고, 이후 수중에 가진 돈이 거의 다 떨어져 가고 수사망이 좁혀 오는 상황에서 81세의 노부부를 살해하고 강도 범행을 저지르게 된 것이어서, 그 범행 수단과 방법의 잔인함과 포악함이 피고인 B의 본성의 발현이라고 곧바로 단정하기는 어려운 점, ① 제반 사정에 비추어 약물치료 등으로 적절하게 치료받고 제대로 교육받는다면 피고인 B이 갱생할 수도 있다는 희망을 쉽사리 배제할 수는 없는 점 등이 있음을 알 수 있다.

Meanwhile, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, there was a serious possibility of criticism against Defendant B, and thus it is inevitable to punish the victim. However, at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant did not reach a state of mental disability due to its character disorder. In particular, at the time of the crime of this case, the Defendant B was in a normal criminal state, and the Defendant B took the life of three weeks during the period of the crime. In particular, the victim E was a person who was killed by his or her own relatives, not others, and was infinite, and the victim AB and AC tried to kill the victim for his or her life, and tried to kill the victim by committing the crime of this case, and the victim’s first attempt to kill the victim and to kill the victim, and the victim’s first attempt to kill his or her knife his or her knife by taking advantage of his or her knife, and the victim’s knife and the victim’s first attempt to commit the crime of this case.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the circumstances constituting the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant B’s growth process, family relationship, relationship with the victim E, motive for the crime, mental illness and medical treatment, and fear of recidivism, etc. Therefore, in the instant case, it is difficult to deem that there are special circumstances that justify the sentence of death penalty against Defendant B.

The punishment of death penalty or life imprisonment, which is a statutory penalty for more than one reason, shall be determined by the applicable sentences.

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

Since the sentencing criteria are not set for each crime of murder and each crime of violation of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set and those for which the sentencing criteria are not set are substantive concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria are not applied to this case. Provided, That the sentencing criteria for the crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set are referenced in the following cases:

1) The crime of robbery against the victim E

[Determination of Punishment] homicide consisting of serious crimes (Type 4)

[Special Convicted Persons] A planned murder, cruel method of committing a cruel crime, and the victim who is in existence (aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Imprisonment of 25 years to imprisonment (special aggravated areas)

2) Each robbery committed against the victim AB and AC

[Determination of Punishment] homicide consisting of serious crimes (Type 4)

[Special Esponsor] Aggravated murder, and a victim who is vulnerable to a crime (Aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Imprisonment of 25 years to imprisonment (special aggravated areas)

3) Crimes of attempted robbery

[Determination of Punishment] homicide consisting of serious crimes (Type 4)

[Special Convicts] A systematic murder crimes (Aggravated Elements), and there is no minor injury or injury (Discretionary Elements)

[Recommendation and Recommendation Scope] Imprisonment from 6 years to 20 years (the scope of sentence in the basic area. The scope of sentence in the basic area of robbery. The scope of sentence in the basic area of imprisonment from 20 years to 1/3, the minimum range of sentence in the crime of murder shall be reduced to 2/3, and the upper limit shall be reduced to 2/3, and the term "weapon" shall be reduced to 20 years or more.

4) Each fraud

[Determination of Punishment 16] Fraudulent Crime less than KRW 100 million (Type 1)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (Basic Area)

5) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 25 years or for life (in addition to 1/2 of the upper limit of the range of sentence among other crimes with the highest upper limit of the range of sentence among the crimes, 1/3 of the upper limit of the range of sentence among the crimes) and 7 of the upper limit of the range of sentence);

6) Scope of the modified sentencing according to the applicable sentencing range: life imprisonment (in cases where the upper and lower limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing criteria are inconsistent with the scope of the applicable sentencing range in law, it shall be in accordance with the statutory upper and lower limit of the applicable sentencing range);

(c) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for life;

As seen earlier, the sentence of life imprisonment for Defendant B shall be determined by sentencing for life on the same ground as the reasons for the choice of life imprisonment.

2. Defendant A

(a) Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 10 years up to 50 years;

(b) Non-application of the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria are not set for each offense of violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act, and the sentencing criteria are not applied to each offense of aiding and abetting suicide, and each offense of aiding and abetting robbery and robbery. Since these offenses are in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria are not applicable to this case. However, the sentencing criteria are referenced for the offense of which the sentencing criteria are set.

1) Crimes of robbery

[Determination of Punishment] homicide consisting of serious crimes (Type 4)

[Special Convicts] In the event that there are special circumstances to consider the commission of a crime, dolusorous murder, planned murder, cruel murder, and cruel method (aggravated factor)

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Imprisonment of 20 years to imprisonment for life (Basic Field)

2) Each fraud

[8] The type of fraudulent crime is less than KRW 100,000 (Type 1).

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of six months to one year and six months (Basic Area)

3) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for not less than 20 years to imprisonment for life (a total of 1/2 of the upper limit of the sentence range among other crimes with the highest maximum of the sentence range among other crimes)

4) Scope of recommended sentences as modified by applicable sentences: Imprisonment of 20 to 50 years (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentences).

C. Determination of sentence: The 30-year human life is the highest legal interest and the most dignity value of our society’s law, and an act of infringing upon it is an absolute and serious crime, regardless of its reason. Defendant A knowingly known that Defendant B was under mental treatment, notified Defendant B of the method of crime and the method of crime, strengthened his will to commit the crime, and shared the robbery of the victim E by sharing the commission of the crime at the scene of the crime. Defendant B was unable to commit the crime after Seocheoncheon, and it was difficult for Defendant B to keep the victim’s own will at time. However, Defendant B was able to neglect the additional crime of Defendant B or leave the Defendant’s additional crime, but it was inevitable for Defendant B to continuously increase the number of times for the reason that it was impossible to know. Accordingly, Defendant A’s attempt to kill the victim by committing the crime, which is too strong and strengthened.

However, Defendant A, compared to Defendant B, has a weak degree of participation in the actual crime; Defendant A did not directly cause the death of the victims of this case; Defendant A planned the robbery of the victim E with Defendant B, but it appears that Defendant A did not seem to have made a specific and conclusive desire to commit the death of the victim E and did not seem to have been aware of the result in a specific and conclusive manner; Defendant A was liable to commit the crime after the commission of the crime, taking into account the circumstances favorable to Defendant A’s favorable to the other factors; Defendant A’s age, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.; Defendant A shall be sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a period of 30 years, comprehensively taking into account various sentencing conditions specified in the arguments, such as the following circumstances.

Part of innocence - Defendant A

1. This part of the facts charged9

(a) Crimes of murdering with victims S around January 2, 2019;

After killing E as stated in the judgment, from around 20:00 on December 29, 2018 to 24:00 on the same day, the Defendants discussed in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu D's room (at the house of Defendant B, the plan for future crime and the scheme for raising funds for escape, and on that spot, Defendant A conspiredd Defendant B with “I will live in the same way as the previous ones, I would like to commit the crime of continuous robbery,” “I would like to commit the crime of continuous robbery (the mother of Defendant B),” “I would like to commit the crime against Defendant B, I would like to easily kill the female employees, and I would like to easily kill the elderly and the elderly.” In response to the foregoing, Defendant B proposed to the purport that “I would easily murder the female employees or the elderly.”

Defendant A demanded Defendant B to promptly resume the commission of robbery by sending H message at several times around December 30, 2018, around December 31, 2018, and around January 1, 2019. On January 2, 2019, Defendant B sent Defendant B a link to the address of “R, which is an Internet site for searching for H message-type and Won-type shop.” On January 2, 2019, Defendant A instructed Defendant B to continue committing robbery by searching for the subject of the commission of the crime at the above site.

In accordance with the above public invitation and criminal action plan, Defendant B, in coloring the subject of the crime in the above "R", set forth that Defendant B was subject to the crime in the "T Myp site shop operated by the victim S (the age of 45)", and made a promise to contact the victim at around 22:00 on January 2, 2019 and then reported that the reservation was made to Defendant A as H message.

Defendant B, at around 22:10 on January 2, 2019, was in possession of a room consisting of knife, knife, watch, hearing tape, lock, etc. to be used for committing the crime, and inspected the situation while communicating with the victim by entering the "T" Myp site shop located in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Utel V. However, Defendant B did not commence its execution because it was difficult to suppress the victim due to a narrow relation in the space of the location.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim.

(b) A crime of robbery committed by the victim W on January 3, 2019;

Defendant A reported that he failed to commit the crime as described in paragraph (a) from Defendant B, and around 05:00 on January 3, 2019, Defendant A sent H message to Defendant B, sent it to Defendant B at one-person marina shop where female employees are exposed to, and then sent back a credit frame for female employees, and proposed that Defendant B murdered female employees in order to conceal the crime, by threatening female employees’ face as a drinking tape and knife with knife with knife with female employees, and by taking money and valuables. Defendant B conspired to murder the female employees at one-person marina shop and receive money and valuables.

In accordance with the above public offering and criminal action plan, Defendant B set “Y” operated by the victim W (the age of 28) as the subject of the crime at the “R site, and made a promise to contact the victim at around 22:00 on January 3, 2019 and reported that the reservation was made to Defendant A as H message.

On January 3, 2019, Defendant B entered a knife, knife, credit frame, Cheong tape, and lock, etc. to be used for committing the crime, and attempted to murder the victim with a knife that knife with a knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife with a knife that is used for committing the crime. Defendant B tried to kill the victim with a knife that knife with a knife that knife with a knife that is in possession of a knife with a knife that is in possession of a knife that is in possession of a knife and that is in possession of a knife that knife.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to take the property of the victim and murdered the victim, but the Defendants attempted to commit the crime.

(c) Crimes of robbery against AB and AC around January 5, 2019;

Defendant B moved to Incheon around January 3, 2019 in accordance with Defendant A’s order to continue committing robbery after failure to commit the crime as described in B, and move to Incheon. On January 4, 2019, Defendant B returned to the Michuhol-gu Incheon ADdong Group, which was used as a tool for committing the crime. While Defendant B was colored the object of the crime, but did not find the object of the crime and did not commence the commission of the crime.

Defendant A received a report from Defendant B on the failure to commit the crime as above, and around 04:00 on January 5, 2019, Defendant B asked Defendant B to the effect that Defendant B was failed to follow his instructions due to the failure to follow the instructions, and asked Defendant B to be waiting for a specific studio or lap in front of the commission of the crime. Defendant B demanded that Defendant B start the robbery immediately at the time of a female or senior citizen’s death. Defendant B sent an Internet press address link with the content that he participated in the crime by threatening convenience employees with a deadly weapon, and informed Defendant B that the crime could be easily successful in the commission of the crime by using a knife.

At around 13:00 on January 5, 2019, Defendant A provided Defendant B with a knife with a female or senior citizen as a target of crime, and sent the H message called the strong withdrawal of money and valuables to Defendant B. In response, Defendant B provided a bank with an instrument of crime, such as B and knife, in accordance with the above public offering and criminal activity plan, at a flife with a flife at the flife, which had been silentd around 14:0 on the same day, and then the Michuhol-gu Incheon ADdong Housing return to Korea.

As a result, the target of crime was colored.

Defendant B 16:43 on January 5, 201, 16: the victim AB who was holding the above-mentioned AF card knife at the victim's knife and 81 years old, and found the victim AB before the victim's knife at the victim's knife, and then carried the knife at the victim's knife and knife at the victim's knife's knife and knife at the victim's knife and knife at the victim's knife, and knife at the victim's knife's knife and knife at the victim's knife, the victim did not get the victim's knife at the victim's knife's knife, and the victim's knife.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to murder victims and forcibly received the victims' property.

(d) Crimes of murdering with respect to AJ around January 6, 2019;

Defendant B, after committing the crime as described in paragraph (c), was instructed by Defendant A to continue to commit robbery by moving to Busan through H message, and was moved to Busan on January 5, 2019 after boarding the Mampon KTX train in light of light-based city around 19:35, and the date on the same day, Defendant B was accommodated in AMM telecom I located in Busan Dong-gu.

At around 10:30 on January 6, 2019, Defendant A sent H message to Defendant B, stating that “I am able to kill five (five (five (five) persons) from the leth to the leth, and then, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am, I am 5). I am asked Defendant B to continue committing robbery. At around 13:23 on the same day, Defendant B sent back a robbery to Defendant B’s address link, and asked Defendant B to continue committing robbery at the above site’s address link to commit robbery.

In accordance with the above public invitation and criminal action plan, Defendant B, who colored the subject of the crime in “R,” set the victim AJ (n, 49 years of age) as a marina branch, was subject to the crime. On January 6, 2019, on contact with the victim around 13:41 on January 6, 2019, and made a promise of marina at around 18:00 on the same day.

Defendant B, at around 16:10 on January 6, 2019, was in possession of a room consisting of knife, knife, knife, Cheong tape, and knife, etc., and was administered in order to examine in advance the surrounding area of the last place located in Busan Jin-gu AL, Busan.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim.

2. Defendant A and his defense counsel’s assertion

Defendant A’s act of Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting a crime constitutes a principal offender, not a joint principal offender. Meanwhile, Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting and aiding and abetting a crime is not a joint principal offender, and thus, Defendant A should be acquitted for each of the facts charged against Defendant A, on the ground that Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting a crime is not a joint principal offender. As such, Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting and abetting a murder should be acquitted.

3. Judgment on the argument

A. Relevant legal principles

Article 30 of the Criminal Act provides that two or more persons jointly commit a crime. For the establishment of a joint principal offender, a subjective element is required to have committed a crime through functional control by a joint doctor, which is an objective element. Here, it is insufficient to recognize another person’s crime and not to restrain it, and to accept it. As a joint principal offender’s intent, it is one to jointly commit a specific criminal act with another’s intent, and to shift one’s own intent to practice using another’s act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018; 2018Do5445, May 55, 2018; 2018Mo2593, May 16, 2018). Meanwhile, in order for a joint principal offender to be recognized as a joint principal offender, there is no reasonable doubt as to whether an accomplice who did not directly commit a crime with the constituent elements to the extent that he/she did not have any inherent influence over and influence over one another’s’s position (see, etc.).

Meanwhile, aiding and abetting under the Criminal Act refers to all direct and indirect acts that facilitate the commission of a principal offender with the knowledge of the fact that the principal offender is committing a crime, and such aiding and abetting acts as not only tangible and material aiding and abetting but also aiding and abetting the principal offender to strengthen the resolution of the commission of a crime constitutes an intangible and mental aiding and abetting acts, such as aiding and abetting and abetting the principal offender during the commission of the principal offender, but also aiding and abetting the act in the future before the commencement of the commission (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018; 2018Do7658, Apr. 54, 2018; 2018Do556, 2018Mo2593, Sept. 13, 20

As above, the essence of the co-principal is deemed to be functional control by division of roles. As such, the co-principal is distinguishable from each other in that the co-principal has a functional control by the co-principal over his/her functional control (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do12732, Jan. 10, 2013).

B. Determination

1) Facts of recognition

According to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, it is recognized that Defendant A sent a H message with the content that Defendant B gave orders to commit an offense or inform the method thereof, as stated in this part of the facts charged.

However, according to the evidence adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

① Defendant A and Defendant B did not use the same room even if they were silented at the same conference on January 12, 2018, 29, after committing robbery against the victim E. However, Defendant A and Defendant B did not have a room for Defendant B, even though they did not appear as Defendant B’s room.

② On December 29, 2018, Defendant B expressed that she is a criminal community that she will build up her her gree through H message around 13:05 and that she will start and do so under mutual trust, and Defendant B would be able to take charge of her greecing. He seems to be her brecing. He would be her grecing if he processes she will do so. I would like to do so. I would see the future plan that she will cease to meet her drecing. I would have a key to Defendant A, and even she will have a her grecing age. Whether her grecing will be treated only by her grecing? However, Defendant A refused this request even though her grecing?

③ At around December 29, 2018, Defendant B sent H message to Defendant A, and continued to stop committing a crime, stating that Defendant B did not believe that Defendant A was not “the next year?” but does not need to work? There is no reason to see that she was dead and canalized, and that she could do so, and that she would commit a crime. The Defendants discussed the future measures at the AX Defendant B’s house from 20:0 to 24:00 on December 29, 2018. From this point of view, Defendant A’s words “the first day of the instant crime,” “the first day of the instant crime,” “the first day of the instant crime,” and “the second day of the instant case, the second day of the instant case,” made it difficult to see to the effect that Defendant B’s instructions and information could not be inferred on the basis of a defect.

④ On December 29, 2018, the Defendants did not talk with each other after the call from Defendant B’s house at night, and provided only H message. Then, the Defendants received and sent the message, among the H message that the Defendants sent and received.

Only one part of H message drawn up as follows. The main purpose of the Defendants’ giving and taking place is to help Defendant B commit the robbery by first requiring money as a protective measure against Defendant B. Defendant B’s sole commission of the robbery, Defendant A’s commission of the robbery, and Defendant B’s commission of the subsequent commission of the subsequent commission of the crime. After that, Defendant B continued to commit robbery, as indicated in the facts charged, Defendant A gave advice on general matters, such as preparation of the means of crime, object of the crime and selection of the method of the crime (the target of the crime is to be a specific person, and the method of the crime is not to be specified), and Defendant B sent H message with the following contents: (a) Defendant B sent advice about the preparation of the means of crime, the object of the crime, and the method of the crime; and (b) Defendant B’s selection of the method of the commission of the crime; and (c) Defendant B sent advice to Defendant B’s horse; and (d) Defendant B followed Defendant B’s resolution to strengthen the resolution of the commission of the crime.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

⑤ Defendant A did not have any physical assistance necessary for committing the crime described in this part of the facts charged, and there was no distribution of profits that Defendant B acquired from committing the robbery of the victim AB and AC.

2) Specific determination

The aforementioned facts and the following circumstances revealed from the Defendant A: (a) there is no motive for Defendant A to commit a robbery as indicated in this part of the facts charged; (b) Defendant A could continue to express her intent as if he/she was an employee of marina business to the Defendant B, who was able to restrain his/her major crime; and (c) Defendant A’s main purpose of the H message sent to Defendant B is rather than to restrain the specific crime of Defendant A’s own purpose by specific methods; (b) Defendant B’s act is more serious and more likely to be a criminal, and to prepare and flee funds; and (c) Defendant B is not in compliance with the instructions of Defendant A without any consideration, but also decision-making in a direction different from that of Defendant A based on his/her own intent, and thus, Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting the Defendant A to the extent that it is difficult to see that Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting the Defendant’s own mental control through the aforementioned legal principles. In light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that Defendant A’s act of aiding and abetting the Defendant A’s inherent nature of the crime.

Furthermore, aiding and abetting a preliminary act cannot be punished as an aiding and abetting offender (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 79Do2201, Nov. 27, 1979). Of this part of the facts charged against Defendant A, each of the facts charged against Defendant A cannot be punished.

4. Conclusion

Thus, among the facts charged against Defendant A, each robbery and attempted robbery committed by the victim AB and AC constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the innocence should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as the crime of robbery and attempted robbery, which are included in this part of the facts charged, are found guilty of the crime of robbery and attempted robbery, the judgment of innocence is not rendered separately in the text of the Criminal Procedure Act. Each of the facts charged against Defendant A constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the judgment of innocence is rendered pursuant

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judges Cho Soo-sik

Judge Lee Ho-hoon

1) To the extent that it does not impede the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense, the charges are partially revised and recognized.

2) The instant Messenger program provided by the Japanese corporation of J Co., Ltd.

3) The indictment is written as "09:54," and the prosecutor corrected it as "21:54,00 on the second trial date." However, according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, "14:13,00 according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor," appears to be from the perspective of crime (3:00,000).

4) Maternity disorder: Maternity disorder is very inconvenience and lack of ability to establish relationship. Maternity and tolerance appears to have shown in overall life. There seems to be a friendly relationship, and there are almost little social anxiety, such as the use of a friendly and exaggerated veterinary language, suspected or distorted sensing, doubtful or editing, improper conduct, appearance or appearance, as well as relatives of the next relative.

5) The prosecutor indicted the entire crime as a co-principal, and the Defendant A argued to the effect that the entire crime constitutes an aiding and abetting offender. Since the crime following the Seocheon was accepted by the Defendant’s argument as to the crime, the Defendant A is recognized as an aiding and abetting offender as stated in the facts of the crime in its holding (the specific reason is as follows). Here, the crime committed with the credit card obtained by Defendant A and E constitutes an aiding and abetting offender.

6) The type of concurrent crimes among general fraud crimes shall be determined on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit, in accordance with the standards for handling multiple offenses.

7) Basic crimes, other crimes with the highest maximum limit of sentence among those, and second crimes with the highest limit of sentence are all robbery.

8) The type of concurrent crimes among general fraud crimes shall be determined on the basis of the sum of the amount of profit, in accordance with the standards for handling multiple offenses.

9) In summary, Defendant B was indicted as Defendant B’s co-principal for all remaining crimes except for the part of “the fraud using debit cards under the name of Section 5B and the violation of the Specialized Credit Financial Business Act” among the following crimes:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.