2014No3431 (a) homicide

(b) Murder;

1. A.

2.2.B

Defendants and Prosecutor

Maximum (Public prosecution), private soldiers, and public trial (public trial)

Attorney C (private election for the defendant A)

Law Firm DF (private line for defendant B)

Attorney DG, DH, DI, DJ

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014Gohap290 Decided October 27, 2014

April 30, 2015

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twenty years.

Seized evidence Nos. 1 through 5 shall be confiscated from Defendant A.

All appeals by Defendant B and by Prosecutor against Defendant B are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

1. Defendant B

A. Issues of the court below's participatory trial

The lower court was a participatory trial, and a part of the jurors had already been exposed to the press prior to the commencement of the trial, and the jurors had been convicted of the Defendant, and the report of Defendant was inappropriate for the participatory trial in the media to continue to proceed with the participatory trial. Nevertheless, the lower court did not take necessary measures, such as isolation for the fair trial of the jurors, and thus, became the major cause of the jury's verdict of conviction.

B. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

The Defendant did not induce the Defendant to murder the Victim H, and the instant case is merely the fact that A alone committed robbery, and in light of the following circumstances, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the instant facts charged, even though there is reasonable doubt that the Defendant instigated A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misunderstanding the facts.

1) The victim has no motive for murdering the victim as an important sponsor of the defendant.

A) By the end of 2013, the victim had paid the liquor value of the Defendant by the end of 2013, and had a good relationship with the Defendant by the time of the instant crime, such as sponsoring the Chapter 300 of the mountain conference DK at the request of the Defendant, even before being killed due to the instant crime.

B) The Defendant did not receive the amount of money equivalent to KRW 520 million, in addition to receiving entertainment equivalent to approximately KRW 70 million from the victim.

C) Since October 2010, there is no evidence that the victim expected from around October 2010 to change the use of the JA building area into a commercial zone, and the victim promoted the change of use in the commercial zone around March 2013. As such, the loan certificate and the change of use on December 20, 201 are irrelevant.

D) Moreover, at the time, the victim did not wish to change the purpose of use to a commercial district, but only tried to extend the instant J building to a tourist hotel and to operate a hotel business.

E) Ultimately, the loan certificate and the alteration of the purpose of use in this case, stating KRW 520 million, are entirely irrelevant, and the victim has not paid to the defendant an amount equivalent to KRW 520 million in total under the pretext of expenses or expenses for the alteration of the purpose of use in the commercial area. Thus, there was no reason to think that the defendant would have to cause or prevent the victim from spreading the above KRW 520 million. Thus, there was no initial motive for the murderer claimed by the prosecutor.

F) Even if the Defendant received KRW 520,000,000 as expenses or expenses for change of the purpose of use, there is no reason to stimulate the Defendant’s murdering of the victim solely by itself.

2) The A’s statement is not reliable.

A) The A’s statement is not consistent and is developing in detail and specifically as the investigation is being conducted, and it is only appropriate to make the statement in the investigation situation. However, due to the occurrence of KRW 70 million, there is no credibility, such as murdering the victim and committing suicide in response to the Defendant’s teachers.

B) Regarding the date and time of the commission of the crime, there is no circumstantial evidence that the Defendant and the Victim were the last date of the crime on March 4, 2014.

C) Rather, A was economically lacking at the time, and there was sufficient motive to force the victim, who is a re-fluent, solely. This is supported in light of the content of the Kakakao Stockholm with A and wife M, and the dialogue with A, who is the seat of A and X.

3) The instant case prevents A from committing robbery in order to avoid economic difficulties, and murdered A with contingently the victim.

A) The crime of this case’s attempted murder and electric shock are in itself a tool of robbery, not a tool of murdering. It is reasonable to view that the robbery was revealed in that the criminal intent of robbery was revealed in that it was not a knife that is not a knife to inflict a knife, but a tool suitable for forcibly taking money.

B) Although there is sufficient circumstance to view that A has been forcibly taking cash at the scene of the instant crime, the investigative agency did not sufficiently believe only the statement of A and investigate, and the lower court was exempted from this part.

C) There is no condition of murder or promise of consideration compared to the extreme crime of murderer, and A also stated that there was no intent to kill the victim at the early investigation stage, and there is sufficient circumstances of robbery, such as the attitude of A in China and the contents of the cameras prepared in the cellular phone.

4) The defendant cannot be sufficiently proven if he/she was delivered to A at his/her detention room.

The first side is to apology M, and the second, the third, the third and the third is to recommend A to exercise the right of silence and to loyalty with the recording that can be an unfavorable evidence against A, and the defendant was not able to make the contents of the side that is terminated through the police, and the defendant was required to withdraw the false confession by turning A.

2. The defendant A and prosecutor's assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The court below declared Defendant A imprisonment with prison labor for 25 years and Defendant B, and asserted that Defendant A’s punishment is too heavy, while the prosecutor asserts that Defendants A’s punishment is too minor.

1. Judgment on Defendant B’s assertion

1. Whether there is a problem in the participatory trial by the court below

A. The citizen participatory trial implemented under the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials (hereinafter referred to as the "National Participatory Trial Act") is a system introduced to enhance democratic legitimacy and trust of justice, and in order to enable jurors or alternate jurors to perform their duties without impediment on the basis of sound common sense and judgment, the presiding judge may take measures such as protection, isolation, accommodation, and other necessary measures when the jury or alternate jurors are or are likely to be in danger or injury, or when fair trial or deliberation is deemed to be impeded or likely to be impeded (Article 53(1) of the Citizen Participatory Trial Act), and the prosecutor, the defendant, defense counsel, jurors, or alternate jurors may request the presiding judge to take measures under paragraph (1) (Article 53(2) of the National Participatory Trial Act).

B. In the instant case, a lot of news, etc. was reported with the attention of the media from the investigation stage, and a juror composed of general citizens may not be aware of excluding the presumption of conviction based on non-court information or evidence with no admissibility of evidence compared to a judge. However, in light of the following circumstances, it is difficult to deem that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or violating the procedure to the extent that it may affect the judgment, as alleged by the Defendant.

1) As to the assertion that a juror already exposed to the media has already been exposed to the media

A) The Defendant and defense counsel attended the selection date of the jury in the lower court to ensure procedural participation in the selection of the jury under Article 28 of the Act on the participatory Trial and the right to ask questions to prospective jurors under Article 28 of the Act on the Participatory Trial and the right to apply for challenge under Article 30. In fact, defense counsel given sufficient opportunities to exclude prospective jurors who are disadvantageous to the Defendant, such as making a peremptory challenge against two of the prospective jurors, making a decision not to select

B) Since the instant case received attention from the media from the investigation stage, it was practically unreasonable to select prospective jurors who are not exposed to the media.

2) As regards the assertion that the case was exposed to the media during the trial and did not take measures under Article 53 of the Act on the participatory Trial.

A) Every person has the right to a participatory trial, as prescribed by law (Article 3 of the National Public Trial Act). If a participatory trial is not enforced, but a defendant does not want a participatory trial, or if a court decides not to proceed with a participatory trial from the date of prosecution to the day following the closing of preparatory hearing (Article 9(1) of the National Public Trial Act), no participatory trial may be held exceptionally.

B) Furthermore, the Act on the Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials has a provision on referral to an ordinary procedure, and it is deemed inappropriate to continue a participatory trial, a trial may be conducted without going through a participatory trial. In addition, the court may refer not only to refer the case ex officio but also to the defendant or defense counsel (Article 11(1) of the Act on the Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials)

C) In this case, not only received attention from the media from the investigation stage, but also 23 witnesses adopted and the investigation records were neglected, and there was a practical reason to isolate jurors in the process of trials for a long time in order to maintain the privacy of jurors. Article 53 of the National Participation Trial Act also provides for protection, isolation, accommodation, and other necessary measures at the discretion of the court.

In this case, Defendant B submitted a counsel appointment system on June 25, 2014, and thereafter expressed his/her intent to proceed to a participatory trial on July 28, 2014, and stated that Defendant B explicitly wished to participate in a participatory trial at the first preparatory hearing. Although media reports are mostly conducted, or the media is likely to be exposed to a juror at the same time, there was no other opinion about applying for submission of a ordinary procedure or conducting a participatory trial, and there was no request for necessary measures, such as protecting or isolation of jurors.

D) The credibility of the Defendant’s statement, which is direct evidence for the Defendant’s criminal conduct, is the core of the instant case. In light of the nature of these issues, fact-finding based on sound common sense and experience of the jury may serve as a reference for deriving a conclusion that accords with the substance of the case. Considering this point, the Defendant and the defense counsel appear to have applied for a participatory trial, and it is difficult to conclude that the jurors are unable or inappropriate to participate in the trial with the assistance and explanation of the

E) Since the jury’s verdict and opinion are not binding on the court (Article 46(5) of the National Participation Trial Act), it is possible for the court to render ex officio rulings different from those of the verdict.

Inasmuch as the jury's verdict was adopted in line with the jury's conviction, even if the press affected the jury's formation of the jury's conviction, it cannot be readily concluded that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

C. Even if the Defendant’s assertion that part of the procedure for a participatory trial was insufficient, in light of the aforementioned circumstances, it is not readily concluded that the court below’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty by referring to the fact that the jury was exposed to the media is to have a direct effect on the jury’s verdict and thereby null and void all procedural acts, or that there was an error of law in the procedure affecting the judgment below

D. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2. As to the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

(a) Facts of recognition (the day on which the crime is committed and the situation thereafter);

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the following facts are recognized:

1) On March 2, 2014, A around 23:52, around 2014, at around 00:39, the victim was waiting for a clerical error in the front section of the J building, the fourth floor of the J building located in Seoul, with fingers and electric shock machines between the second and the third floor stairs, and confirmed that the operation of the singing practice room business on the third floor of the J building through windows ends, and that the opening of the singing practice room business on the third floor of the H office of the victim H of the J building leaves the nameless singing practice room business. On March 3, 2014, at around 0:16, the victim was waiting for a clerical error in the first column of the J building, and around 0:39, the victim was opened with the 3rd floor of the J building and the entrance of the office, and then the victim was able to set the victim's head head so that the victim can bood and bood the victim's boo by taking the victim's k away the victim's boo.

2) At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant used a mobile phone (subscriber BA and AW) other than the mobile phone (BF) under the name of the Defendant. However, from March 3, 2014 to March 3, 2014, the Defendant, from around 02:08, did not have yet to elapse after committing the instant crime, exchanged with the Defendant and exchanged letters with the Defendant.

In addition, the Defendant delivered A a or cash of KRW 1.3 million on the day of the instant case.

3) On March 6, 2014, A departed from the Republic of China’s office on March 14:15, 2014, and even after having arrived in China, A continuously contacted the Defendant as well as his/her neighbors. Meanwhile, on March 11, 2014, the Defendant purchased a new largephone (subscriber BC and BB) and made a call with A by March 28, 2014.

4) On March 18, 2014, through CCTV analysis, an investigative agency identified a deceased person A as a deceased person for murder, and requested an international cooperation on March 25, 2014. On May 22, 2014, China’s public design arrested A in China’s deep sea.

5) After being arrested, A received the help of 'BI' from a local police officer, and contacted the Defendant and M(A) with the cell phone of the police officer in China. In this case, the Defendant made a call with A using a public telephone.

6) A executed a warrant of arrest on June 24, 2014, and the Defendant was also arrested on the same day, and the Defendants issued a warrant of arrest on June 26, 2014.

7) On June 29, 2014, the Defendant issued two copies to A via a police officer of a police station detention room, and on June 30, 2014, the Defendant found A, by leaving a head of a brush A of a detention room, which is left behind. The content of the page is as follows.

(a) the first page;

It is simple that the tear teared without any capital, repeated, and that it is easy to write.Although it may be delivered to the company, it is easy to see a woman within the highest margin, even so, it is difficult to see that the woman was fluencing, fluoring, and hinginginging. He was not fluor, and he was not fluorcing. He would not be fluorcing. he would be fluorcing. he will be fluorcing. he will also be fluorcing back to the police station on June 29, 2014.B.

(b)the second place;

I would like to see that I would like to be able to feas soon as I am. I would like to see where I would like to feas soon as I am. I would like to am. I would like to see that I would like to am. I would like to am I am I am I am. I would like to be forgotten. I would like to be forgotten. I would like to say that I would like to am. I would like to say that I would like to be forgotten. I would like to say that I would like to am. I would like to see what I would am I am, "? I would am I am? I would like to am? I would like to am? I would like to am? I would like to am I am. I would like to am we am. I would like to am am feas soon. I would like to am. I would like to am am feas soon. I would like to am am. I am am. I am am.

(c) the third place;

(앞면)꼭 기억해라. 함정수사한 통화녹취물은 법정에서 증거로 채택할 수 없다. 형법에 나와있어. 그래서 지금 갖고있는 증거는 니 진술과 니가 얘기해준 M, DL 진술 뿐이야.절대로 쫄지마라. 그리고 지금은 무조건 묵비권! 묵비권 해도 불리한건 반성이 부족하단건데, 반성여부보다 형량에 훨씬 더 큰건, 의도성 유무다. 재판전, 수사기록 확인전 묵비권,(뒷면)저놈들 내게는 녹취록 얘기도 못꺼냈다. 난 법을 아니까기억해! 지금 저들이 가진 증거는 니 진술(바뀔수도 있는) 뿐이야.

B. Relevant legal principles

1) The act of instigating a teacher refers to having a principal offender pass a resolution on a crime. If it is possible to pass a resolution on the crime, there is no restriction on the means of the crime, and there is no need to do so explicitly and directly. The facts of the teacher in the above-mentioned crime constitute the crime, and there is no strict proof required to acknowledge it. However, in a case where the defendant denies the fact of the teacher, it may be proven by means of proving indirect facts having considerable relation to the above in the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relation, should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of the fact by means of a close observation or analysis according to the normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 200).

2) In a criminal trial, the finding of guilt ought to be based on evidence of probative value, which may lead a judge to feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is a suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the determination should be based on the benefit of the defendant.

However, such a conviction is not necessarily required to be formed by direct evidence, but is formed by indirect evidence unless it violates the rules of experience and logic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 2000). Even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to a crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as a whole, the crime can be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do4392, Nov. 27, 2001).

The probative value of evidence is left to a judge’s free judgment, but it must be consistent with logical and empirical rules, and the degree of the formation of conviction to be found guilty in a criminal trial should not be reasonable doubt. However, it is not required to exclude all possible doubts, and rejection of evidence which is recognized as having probative value by causing a suspicion without reasonable grounds is not allowed beyond the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do1335, Sept. 13, 1994). The term “reasonable doubt” refers not to any question and correspondence, but to meaning a question that is reasonable for the probability of a fact that is inconsistent with the facts that are not compatible with the underlying evidence based on logical and empirical rules (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Do974, Jul. 25, 1997); however, it is not necessary to simply establish the grounds for a sexual presumption in relation to the fact-finding that is favorable to the defendant, and thus, it is not a reasonable doubt or abstract suspicion (see, 20204.

C. Whether there exists a defendant's motive for murder

In light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant received KRW 520 million from the victim has obvious consideration in light of the progress of the change of the purpose of use, etc. However, in light of the loan certificate and daily record, the Defendant may be recognized in light of the fact that the Defendant received KRW 520 million from the victim, and in light of the circumstances of denying the loan certificate, the Defendant prepared the evidence supporting that the Defendant received KRW 520 million from the victim, the amount of KRW 520 million, the Defendant may be deemed to have caused the burden on the above circumstances. The change of the purpose of use to the commercial area in a quid pro quo relationship was nonexistent, even if it is not easy for the Defendant to change the purpose of use in the future, and even if it is difficult to change the purpose of use in the local election in 2014, the Defendant is deemed to have been pressd by the victim as the victim, thereby recognizing the motive for murder.

1) Whether the defendant received KRW 520 million or not

A) Details of the certificate of borrowing are as follows:

on October 2012, 201, the amount of the above shall be reduced to KRW 20 million on October 9, 2010 on the loan 200,000,000,000,000,000 won.

2) The Supreme Prosecutors' Office Scientific Investigation Officer at the Supreme Prosecutors' Office finds that the part below "1 to 4 is highly likely to be written by the defendant," the upper part of the loan is highly likely to be written by the victim, the defendant claims that the amount was blank at the time when the victim requested the preparation of the loan certificate at the drinking house and prepared the loan certificate, but the "1 to 4 was confirmed and recognized" part is deemed to have been written by the defendant, and the date and amount recorded in the loan certificate are deemed to have been written by the defendant at the time of the preparation of the loan certificate, and as shown below, the statement of the loan certificate shall be deemed to have credibility.

2) The credibility of daily records is reliable.

A) Of daily records, the part relating to the Defendant is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

B) The daily record book is prepared every day from July 1, 2006 by the victim, who was in charge of real estate lease management, from July 1, 2006 to March 1, 2014, which is immediately before the death (the victim appears to have worked in the office on the day of the death and planned to adjust the disbursement details on March 2, 2014). Therefore, the content of the daily record book is deemed to have credibility. In addition, the daily record book is consistent with the loan certificate items.

C) Meanwhile, the Defendant alleged that the record does not have credibility every day because he did not have any record of withdrawal even though the amount was a large amount of money that the Defendant paid to the victim, but the cash withdrawn from the account of the victim with regard to the portion of sound management (the portion related to tea receipts) as stated in the following table is as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

On the other hand, in light of the victim's children's written statement in the original trial of T, that the victim operates DU immediately adjacent to the J building, and that the victim took cash of the average of KRW 7-80 million per week, the victim seems to have kept a considerable amount of cash in the safe (at the time of the victim's death, the victim had a large amount of cash of KRW 41 million in the office safe at the time of his/her death, but this money seems to have been the cash of KRW 41 million in the office safe at the time of his/her death, seems to have the ability to provide every day the amount entered in the register.

3) Whether the money issued by the Defendant is related to the change of use

A) The progress of promotion in relation to the alteration of use in the vicinity of J Building is as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

나) ①) 피고인이 2010. 10. 8.부터 2010. 11. 9.까지 합계 1억 2,000만 원을 가져갔는데 그 명목이 불분명하나, 피해자의 내연녀인 Z의 원심법정 진술에 의하면, '피해자는 2010. 6. 25. 구치소에서 출소한 이후부터 상업지역으로 용도변경에 관심이 있었고, 시의원이 사무실(J빌딩)에서 현금 1억 원을 가져갔다는 말을 들었다'는 것인바, 피고인이 1억 원을 가져간 시기는 2010. 11. 9. 이므로 결국 피해자가 피고인에게 교부한 돈은 상업지역으로의 용도변경 명목으로 지급한 것으로 추측이 되는 점, ② 피고인이 용도변경 명목으로 1억 2,000만 원을 가져갔으나, 2010. 11. 25. EH의회 의원인 DP이 'BV지역에 상업지역을 반드시 지정하자'는 발언을 하였으나 EH의 예산문제로 제대로 진척이 되지 아니한 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피해자는 2010. 12. 19. 피고인의 요구에 따라 서울시장 지급명목으로 2억 원을 지급하였으나 용도변경 문제는 별다른 진척이 없었던 점, ④ 피해자는 2011. 12. 20. 피고인에게 2억 원을 추가로 제공하면서 그 전에 가져간 3억 2,000만 원에 대해서도 피고인이 수령하였음을 인정하는 내용의 차용증을 작성하였는데, 통상 차용증의 내용과 달리 변제기나 이율 등이 전혀 기재되어 있지 않으므로 통상의 차용증으로 보기는 어려운 점, ⑤ EH구청은 2012, 3.경부터 J빌딩이 있는 AJ 주변을 상업지역으로의 변경을 추진하였으나, 구체적인 개발계획 없이 추진되었고, 또한 용도변경 조정은 1단계 조정을 원칙으로 하는데, J빌딩 인근지역은 제3종일반주거지역으로서 준주거지역을 넘어서 바로 상업지역으로의 변경은 어려웠을 것으로 보이는 점, ⑥ EH구청이 추진한 용도변경은 서울시가 반대하였고, 결국 2013. 7.경 용도변경을 포기하기에 이르른 점, ⑦ 한편, 피해자는 2012. 8.경 J빌딩을 관광호텔로 사용하기 위해 건물을 증축(기존 4층에서 8층으로) 하려고 하였으나 J빌딩은 건축 한계선이 3.5m로서 기준 건축한계선(5m)을 위반한 상황이고, 2004년에 한번 증축을 하여 더 이상 증축을 할 수 없음(지구단위계획에 저촉되는 경우 1회에 한하여 증축이 가능)을 알게 된 점, ⑧ 따라서 J빌딩을 증축하기 위해서는 건축한계선을 변경해야 가능한데, EH구청이 위와 같이 상업지역으로 용도변경하면서 건축한계선의 변경(기존 5m에서 3, 4m로 변경, 수사기록 제3113, 3264쪽 참조)도 함께 추진한 점, ⑨ 피해자는 2013. 3.경 용도변경과 건축한계선이 변경될 것으로 예상하고 있었고, 피고인과 그 가족 및 건축사 R 등 또한 2014년 지방선거 전까지 용도변경이 되리라고 예상하고 있었던 점(성인콜라텍은 위락시설로서 '상업지역'에서만 영업을 할 수 있는데, 인테리어업을 하던 피해자의 아들 AD이 2013년경 성인콜라텍을 철거하자고 하였으나, 피해자는 곧 용도변경이 될 것이니 철거할 필요가 없고 아들에게 직접 성인콜라텍을 운영해 보라고까지 하였다), ① 뒤에서 보듯이 A이 2012. 4.경 최초로 살해교사를 받을 당시에는 '피고인이 작성해준 차용증과 관련하여 피해자로부터 압박을 받고 있으므로 차용증을 회수하라'는 것이었으나, 2013년 말경에는 '땅이 있는데 그거를 풀어야 되는데 그게 절대 안되는 땅'이라는 이유로 살해교사를 받았다고 진술하고 있는 점 등 제반사정에 비추어 보면, 피해자는 피고인에게 용도변경과 관련한 로비명목으로 돈을 교부한 것으로 보이고, 5억 2,000만 원의 차용증을 작성한 이후부터 피해자로부터 적지 않은 압박을 받다가 EH구청이 용도변경을 시도하였으나 포기한 후에도 사실상 용도변경이 힘듬에도 불구하고, 피고인은 피해자에게 2014년 지방선거 전까지 상업지역으로의 용도변경을 약속하였던 것으로 보인다.

D. Whether a statement A is credibility

A’s investigative agency (each police interrogation protocol against A) and the court below’s statement, which are direct evidence related to murdering, have been included in A’s investigation agency (excluding this part as the defendant denies the content and has no admissibility of evidence) and the statement in the court below. Since April 2012, Defendant B instigated to kill the victim continuously from around April 2012, and attempted to kill the victim on March 3, 2014 in response to continued teachers. Thus, in light of the following circumstances revealed through the evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below, the statement is credibility.

1) If A did not receive murder from the Defendant, it was very detailed and well-known about difficult information.

A) The victim seems to have no way to know about detailed information about the victim, unless the victim is a person who has been in a business of business or a person who has sent time in the PC and was in a close relation with the victim, as well as a person who has been in a close relation with the victim.

B) A was also aware that not only the accurate internal location of the office, but also the victim had a 'the building by forging a document that manages the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the 'the '' building' but also the 'the 'the 'the 'the ' the ' the 'the ' the ' the ' the ' the ' the '' building', such as the specific time or order that the 'the 'the ' the 's office' visits the office of J the 's building by forging it.

C) In addition, the Defendant stated that the loan certificate “50 million won (on the actual basis, KRW 520 million) was “the loan certificate issued by the Defendant,” and at the end of 2013, that it was “the land which must be cut off from the Defendant,” but it was also known that it was related to the change of the purpose of use and that there was the account book of the victim.

2) A consistently stated that he murdered by the Defendant’s teacher from the prosecution to the court of original trial.

A) If Defendant B does not intervene, there is no motive for Defendant B to kill the victim (as to the Defendant’s assertion that the crime of robbery is committed solely by A, I will review the same again).

B) immediately after the instant crime was committed, A escaped to China. However, following the Defendant B’s solicitation to commit suicide, Defendant B’s attempt to commit suicide several times, and even though it was difficult, Defendant B continued to commit suicide without questioning the part of the body, and made it difficult for Defendant B to look at the victim’s family members, and made a statement that she was able to see the victim’s s/he was s/sheed to s/he, and that she was s/he was able to s/ sheed to s/he, and that he/she was s/ sheed to s/ s/he was s/ sheed to s/ she, and that she was s/he was s/ she true,

3) In light of the date of the instant crime and the criminal conduct thereafter, it is persuasive in Defendant B’s statement as to Defendant B’s teacher.

A) The Defendant and A’s call details per crime day

A, around 00:39 on March 3, 2014, after committing the instant crime, around 00:48, at around 00:48, J building B and cab arrive at the Yeonsu-gu Incheon, Yeonsu-gu, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, to exchange multiple contacts with the Defendant using the following MaW.

A person shall be appointed.

A In light of the following facts: (a) the Defendant sent 02:08 letters to the Defendant (A stated that the Defendant sent 'A' 'A' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 'W' 02:02. The Defendant attempted

B) After committing the crime

A은 중국으로 도피한 이후인 2014. 3. 20, 23:00경 피고인과 W에게 자신의 단독 범행인 듯한 내용의 카카오톡 문자메시지를 남겼는데, A은 같은 날 17:26경 DX으로부터 BQ찜질방에서 형사들이 자신을 찾고 있다는 이야기를 들은 직후, 피고인과 4차례(17:40, 17:41, 17:54, 18:11) 통화(피고인이 사용한 휴대전화는 앞서 본바와 같이 새로운 대포폰 BB이다)를 하였고, 위와 같이 '자신이 강도'라는 취지로 문자를 보낸 정황에 비추어 보면, 범행이 발각되었다는 사실을 알게 된 피고인에게 알리바이를 만들어주려고 했다는 A의 진술에 신빙성이 있어 보인다.

In addition, around April 10, 2014, A left his cell phone with a form of mergatorship. In addition, A seems to follow the direction of the defendant.

4) Regarding the inconsistency with A’s statements and the motive A’s motive

A) Regarding the point of time of the Defendant’s murdering of homicide, A claimed around October 201 or around November 2012, and confirmed KRW 13 million from the Defendant, and did not accurately specify the period of his assertion on April 201. However, the following circumstances are as follows: ① the date on which the instant loan certificate was drawn up is deemed as December 20, 201; ② the Defendant would have suffered a burden on the loan certificate that she would interfere with; ② the Defendant sent KRW 13 million to A’s account in the former wife’s name on April 4, 2012; ③0 of the investigative agency and the lower court concluded that the Defendant’s face was lower than the victim’s face at the time of having made a false statement, and the Defendant could have made a false statement about KRW 13 million to B with the victim’s face at the time of the second instance trial.

B) In addition, although there are parts that are partly contradictory or doubtful about A’s statements, it does not affect the overall credibility of the statement, and there are parts that are subsequent or inconsistent with the detailed order of part, but the consistent statement is maintained with respect to the main part, and it is deemed difficult to reversely and accurately memory the detailed contents on several occasions, such circumstance alone alone cannot be rejected.

C) In view of the consistent statement of A and the relationship between A and the Defendant in this case, it is difficult to determine the consideration for murdering in this case only by referring to a large and large amount of property value. Of course, A also does not pay a debt of KRW 70 million, the Defendant’s political life was not completed and it was expected that he/she will give one office to himself/herself when he/she became well-being, and he/she thought that he/she would return his/her family to the university. However, A consistently stated that he/she did not want to assist the Defendant, unlike his/her or his/her other relatives, and it appears that he/she did not intend to assist him/her in the social success, and that he/she failed to assist him/her, and that he/she attempted to assist him/her, and that he/she attempted to kill himself/herself, and that he/she attempted to do so by mixing it with the motive of the Defendant’s homicide, and that he/she failed to do so.

E. Whether A’s robbery can be seen as committing robbery

In light of the following circumstances known through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is difficult to view A’s crime as robbery.

1) consistently asserted that A consistently brought about the fact that a paper from the scene of the crime brought about to be used to find a loan certificate by following the hand, and the victim brought about a dS hotel that he/she operates at night and at night in A43 (sales details, large-scale room, and daily product sales store). At the time of the occurrence of cash receipt (in the case of Sundays, the average amount of KRW 500,000,000) (in the case of Sundays, the sales amount was small, and the average amount of KRW 500,000), A’s paper, which includes cash, is added to A4 as above, and appears to have been cited as a loan certificate.

2) The purpose of committing robbery is to bring money to the victim. At the time, A had engaged in any conduct that continued to find what was the victim’s fingers and electrical shocks (in the hand room, in line with A’s assertion that he was scambling, and A followed the victim’s fingers, and he was committing any act that was found out of the office twice after he was scambling the victim, and 1 million won was 1 million won in the hand room, and 230,000 won in cash was not brought to the victim’s wall.

3) Although the Defendant alleged that the commission of the crime was not a tool to commit the crime, the victim’s private person is the victim’s head damage (a number of 2nds), there was 15 satises at the price due to knife, and 3 of them were accompanied by the satise of the bones of head, and it cannot be said that the satise was not a tool to commit the crime, and A had a good body and had an electric shock machine at the time of committing the crime of this case, and thus, knife was also considered as a tool corresponding to the purpose of murder.

4) From among the crime of this case, A committed the crime of this case, it is hard to say that the purpose of robbery is to cut off the head of the victim again due to the knife with the knife, electric shocker, with the knife of the victim's knife, and knife the victim's knife, thereby suppressing the victim's knife.

(f) concerning the pages on which the defendant prepared;

원심에서 적법하게 채택 · 조사한 증거들을 통해 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 이 사건 기록을 통해 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들에 비추어 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ① 피고인이 주장과 같이 A이 자신에게 살인교사의 누명을 씌운 것이라면 피고인 입장에서는 '왜 자신을 허위로 지목했냐'며 원망이나 분노가 생길 것인데도 쪽지의 내용은 '사실대로 말해달라고 애원하거나, 왜 거짓말을 했냐고 억울함을 호소하는 내용이 아닌 점, ② 특히 세 번째 쪽지는 통화녹취물이 증거로 채택될 수 없으니 쫄지 마라거나 묵비권을 행사하라는 내용을 담고 있는데(A은 피고인이 범행을 부인하자 피고인에게 '중국에서 통화한 내용이 모두 녹음되었다'고 거짓말을 하였다), 피고인이 말하는 통화녹취물은 중국 구치소에서 A과 B이 통화한 통화내역을 녹취한 것이고, 피고인이 무고하다면, 해당 통화 내용에는 피고인이 이 사건 범행과 관련이 없다는 내용이 녹음되어 있을 것이므로 피고인 입장에서는 이 자료가 녹취되어 있다면 더없이 유리한 자료가 확보되는 것임에도, 쪽지의 내용은 이와 상반되며 오히려 통화녹취물이 피고인에게 매우 불리한 증거라는 듯이 '저놈들 내게는 녹취록 얘기도 못꺼냈다. 난 법을 아니까'라는 내용을 담고 있어서 납득하기 어려운 점(오히려 통화내용이 피고인과 A이 살인교사 및 살인에 대하여 의논하고, 피고인이 A에게 자살을 강요하고 한국에 들어오면 안된다고 한 내용이라는 A의 진술이 설득력이 있어 보인다) 등에 비추어 보면, 피고인이 작성한 쪽지는 피고인의 범행을 입증할 유력한 증거가 된다고 할 것이다.

G. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

III. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by Defendant A and Prosecutor

1. As to Defendant A

The Defendant committed the instant crime of murdering a victim upon the request of B, which is one of the parties with friendship and at the time of the occurrence of interest. Although there is no relation with the victim, and even though the victim was unaware of the victim, if the Defendant murdered the victim from B, the Defendant exempted the Defendant from the obligation of the existing borrowed money, and subsequently, murdered the victim upon the Defendant’s demand to support his family’s livelihood.

B Even if the above request was made by the defendant with exemption from liability, etc., considering that the contents of the request were "homicides", the defendant should have refused to do so, and made efforts to correct the error of B. However, the defendant accepted the request by B and eventually killed the victim's head by taking advantage of the defendant's request by hand, and the defendant killed the victim's head at several times. The method of killing the victim is very cruel, and the victim made resistance in order to live from the attack of the defendant at the beginning of the crime. Although it seems that there is room for the defendant to keep the victim out of the attack after the commencement of the crime, the defendant murdered the victim by electric shock and hand, and the victim's family member who lost her husband or father lost her father, and it is inevitable for the defendant to be sentenced to severe punishment in light of the fact that the victim's family member suffered from the loss of her husband or father and his/her father and his/her father, and the victim's family member who died from the crime was also damaged or damaged.

However, the defendant does not actively receive the request from B from the beginning, but has started to commit the crime through the pressure of B over several times, the fact that the defendant escaped to China after committing the crime, was arrested and later later, and later his mistake is divided, the victim's bereaved family members cooperate in finding the actual truth of this case, the victim's bereaved family members did not want to punish the defendant, and other sentencing conditions specified in the records and arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, are somewhat unreasonable, and the defendant's argument pointing this out is justified, and the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

2. As to Defendant B

It is desirable that the death penalty system is established within the extremely limited range in the modern literacy country. However, considering the circumstances that the victim's bereaved family members want to punish the defendant by denying all of the crimes even if the defendant was in the first instance trial, and even considering the situation that the victim's bereaved family members want to be punished, considering the circumstances cited by the court below, the defendant's age, character and conduct, and environment, the court below's punishment is deemed appropriate, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

IV. Conclusion

Therefore, Defendant A’s assertion is with merit, and since all of the allegations about Defendant B and the prosecutor’s argument about Defendant B are without merit, the part against Defendant A among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is again decided as follows through the pleading. Since the appeal against Defendant B and the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant B is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It

[Grounds for the Judgment Re-written against Defendant A]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence is the same as that of Defendant A in the judgment of the court below, and they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment for Imprisonment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

The punishment shall be determined as per the order by taking into account the circumstances mentioned above and the recommended sentences according to the sentencing guidelines of the Sentencing Committee.

Summary Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Yong-chul

Judges Park fixed-time