(b) Destruction of a corpse;

(c) Abandonment of a corpse;

(d) Forgery of private documents;

(e) Events of a falsified investigation document;

F. Violation of the Immigration Control Act

2016 Doz. 12 (Joint Attachment Orders)

A person shall be appointed.

ix) Judgment

1. Defendant case;

A. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal by the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”), the Defendant’s assertion that there was an error of violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of legal principles in determining the sentencing of the lower court constitutes the allegation of unfair sentencing.

The first instance court held that the crime of this case was committed by cutting the body of the victim with the intent of destroying the evidence after killing the victim living with the victim himself/herself and cutting the victim's body at many places. The method of the crime is harsh and very serious. In particular, the defendant cannot find the minimum respect for the personality of the victim in the act of cruelly destroying the victim's body and abandoning the victim's body, and the defendant sent text messages using the victim's cell phone to pretend the victim to live, and tried to mitigate his/her responsibility by taking responsibility for the crime into consideration the victim's words, and did not completely recover from the victim's body, even though the damage was caused to the victim's bereaved family members, and committed the crime of this case in a contingent manner without complete mental or judgment ability, and committed the crime of this case in a situation where the defendant kills the victim in a manner similar to the victim's body, although the method of the crime of destroying the body was cruel, it is a crime where the defendant kills the victim in a similar way.

In light of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that there is no choice but to maintain differences with the defendant, and the fact that there is room for edification and improvement of the defendant, the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life, and the court below upheld the judgment of the first instance court.

Examining various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which are acknowledged based on records and evidence, even if considering the circumstances asserted by the Defendant and his defense counsel as the grounds for appeal, the lower court’s determination of sentencing in the first instance court does not exceed the reasonable limit of discretion, and it is unreasonable to maintain the judgment of sentencing in full view of the materials revealed in the course of the sentencing hearing, and thus, to maintain the judgment of the first instance court that declared

B. As to the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, even where a sentence of death penalty or imprisonment with or without prison labor for an indefinite term or for not less than ten years has been imposed on the defendant, a prosecutor cannot file an appeal on the grounds that such punishment is too minor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do17829, Apr. 28, 201; 201Do177, Apr. 28, 201).

2. As to the case of the claim for attachment order

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s request for attachment order of an electronic device based on its determination that it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant is likely to recommit the murder crime. In light of the record, the lower court did not err by violating the Constitution, Act, order, or rule

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Park Young-young

Chief Justice Kim Shin -

Justices Kim Jong-il