2014 Before the beginning of 2014 12(combined) attachment orders

A

An applicant for an attachment order shall be ordered to attach an electronic tracking device for 30 years, and matters to be observed in the attached Form shall be imposed during the period of attachment.

The defendant and the respondent for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have been engaged in the maritime brokerage business from November 2, 2007 to December 2, 201, and are now in office. The victim E (n, 65 years of age) is the defendant's wife F and G middle school and H high school motive. The defendant was well aware of about 30 years prior to the introduction of the wife F, such as trading of money equivalent to about 30 million won with the victim E or accompanying travel.

Victims (n, 85 years of age) are victims E E-satis.

2. Criminal facts;

The Defendant, along with the instant case and J on November 2, 2007, operated K Co., Ltd. operating a shipping brokerage business from around November 2, 2007. On January 2, 201, due to the decline in maritime games due to the influence of bomarial piracy, etc., and the management of the said company became difficult, the Defendant received KRW 150 million from the Plaintiff, other than the instant case, which operated L Co., Ltd., around March 10, 201.

Around the end of December 201, 201, the above M filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on January 8, 201, on the ground that K Co., Ltd closed its business, and then “loan amount of KRW 150 million is not “investment money,” but “B”. In the process of the above lawsuit, the above J appeared as a witness and testified to the effect that “B is well aware of what is the cause of receiving the above KRW 150 million between the Defendant and M”. After which the Defendant was ruled against the above judgment on December 12, 2013, the Defendant appealed against the above judgment on December 26, 2013. At that time, the Plaintiff M Co., Ltd. and the above J, a witness, had a deep mental stress at the same time, at the same time, as the Plaintiff’s Ma and the above J, a witness, and at the same time, at the same time, at considerable level of mental stress.

On January 7, 2014, the Defendant was under severe mental stress as above, on the ground that at around 13:20 on January 7, 2014, the Defendant was trying to visit the victim E with his own influence, and parked in the vicinity of the fourth floor of the building located in Busan High-gu, Busan High-gu, 00, and then entered the above building, and went forward to the front of the door of the victims with the fourth floor of the above building. Thereafter, the Defendant, at the entrance of the above building, sent the front letter of the above house, saying, “I have been in real estate due to the rent of the building,” and entered the front door by opening the door of the victim Lee Jong-gu.

Around that time, the Defendant thought that the Defendant was waiting for the victim E to enter the said M andJ while standing in the said house’s room. In mind, the Defendant saw that the Defendant would have to kill the Plaintiff by being sealed, and that he would have to unsatisfed him. As above, the Defendant killed the Defendant’s satisfy from the stairs, kid the kitchen, and satfying the sat at the lower part of the victim I, who was arranged as soon as possible at the front part of the said house’s house’s room, followed by the victim I, who was able to collect the satfy in the front part of the said house’s room, and was able to kill the female from the satfy by causing damage to the satfy force.

After killing the victim I, the Defendant opened the above house door and examined whether the victim E was able to return home through the stairs, and then tried to find out whether the victim E had any property to be stolen by taking the inside of the above house, and then, then, the victim E, who finished shopping around 16:00 of the same day, concealed the body of the victim E, even though the victim E, who got into the above house, was able to escape by means of going to the front door door of the living room. However, although the victim E, who was arranging goods purchased from the above house, was discovered to the victim E, who was able to write down the goods purchased from the above house, and i.e., the head and body of the woman, who was able to return from the above house, and killed the female by causing the death of the female.

【Fact of Grounds for Attachment】

The Defendant, as stated in paragraph (2) of the above facts constituting a murder, is likely to recommit the murder crime.

Summary of Evidence

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Protocol of inspection;

1. A report on the occurrence of a disaster;

1. Each investigation report (No. 17,29, 31 No. 51 of the evidence list);

1. Requests for appraisal (2014-S-2043);

1. Each written result of autopsy;

1. Each protocol of inspection;

1. A written appraisal of each panel of inspection;

1. A report on the analysis of the form of blood;

1. All on-site photographs;

【Risk of Reoffending at Time of Sales】

The following circumstances acknowledged by the request for the attachment order and the written report of the society are as follows: ① The crime of this case results in the victim's death due to multiple types of harm by leaving the victim's body, which is a deadly weapon; ③ murdering the victim's body after killing the victim's I; ② the method and contents of the crime were cruel; ② the defendant thought that the victim's mind and Ma, J, and Ma, I think that the victim would like to kill the victim's body; ③ the defendant's murdering the victim who did not have any relationship with the victim; ③ the risk of recidivism by using the evaluation of the "Korean offender's risk of recidivism" (KORS-G); ③ the risk of recidivism by the victim's 20th degree before and after the second diagnosis of the danger of recidivism (the intermediate evidence of this case); and the risk of recidivism by the defendant's 30th degree of personality and behavior (the intermediate evidence of this case); and the risk of recidivism by 30th degree of mental disorder (the intermediate evidence).

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Code (Appointment of Imprisonment for Arms)

1. Punishment for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as a person has selected a punishment for life for committing murder for a victim E with a heavier penalty, no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Issuing an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

Article 5(3), Article 9(1)1, Article 9-2(1)1, Article 9-2(1)2 and 3 of the Act on Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

[Defendant and defense counsel asserts that the defendant murdered victims in a state that they lack the ability to discern things or make decisions due to nautical miles disorder.

The existence of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act is a legal issue that should be determined by the court in light of the purpose of the penal system. In such judgment, the result of the mental appraisal by a specialized appraiser is an important reference material. However, the court is not bound by the opinion. In addition, the existence of mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act should be determined solely by taking into account not only the result of such appraisal but also all the materials on the records such as the background of the crime, means, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do3163, Feb. 24, 1995). In addition, the mental disorder as stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act needs to be determined by the mental disorder other than mental disorder such as mental disorder or abnormal mental state, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that there was a lack or decrease in the ability to distinguish things or control of action accordingly, even if a person with mental disorder was a person with a normal disability (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do25425, Aug.

In light of the records, it is acknowledged that the Defendant, from around 2012, received outpatient medical treatment from P Hospital in several times due to an infertility, response to severe stress, etc., and stated to the effect that the motive of the instant crime was not memory in the course of investigation. The doctor Q of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center affiliated with the Medical Treatment and Custody Center is suspected of having lost memory from a certain point of time (e.g., loss of fright memory) from among the nautical miles disorder with symptoms that the Defendant lost his/her own personality after being preserved (e.g., loss of fright memory), and that he/she is presumed to have been in a state of a mental or physical disability with a decline in judgment at the time of the instant case.”

However, in light of the following circumstances: ① the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was unable to memory the motive of the crime; ② the Defendant, at the time of committing the crime, was 1 to 319, 41 to 457, 68, 48, 185 to 18, 44, 185 to 18, 5, and 1 to 44, 5, and 1 to 3, 5, 5, and 1 to 4, 5, 5, and 1 to 4, 5, and 1 to 4, 5, and 5, and 5, to 1 to 3, 5, and 5, to 1 to 4, 5, and 5, to 5, the Defendant, who was using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force of using the force.

2. Scope of recommendations;

○ Basic and Concurrent Crimes

[Determination of Punishment] homicide, Type 2 (Ordinary homicide)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] and Aggravationd Persons: Cruel Criminal Code

○ Scope of Recommendations: for not less than 15 years, life-sustaining

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of life imprisonment was committed by the defendant; the mother of the victim E, who was married to the victim E, for whom he had been living together; the victim E, who had been living together, went into his house to open the entrance; and the victim was unable to enter his house; and the victim's body was removed from the victim's body, and the victim's body was immediately removed from the victim's body, and the victim's body could not be removed from the victim's body, and the victim's body could have been removed from the victim's body, and the victim's body could not be removed from the victim's body again. In light of the contents and result of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, it appears that the defendant died of the victim's body and the victim's body could not be removed from the victim's body, and the victim's body could not be removed from the victim's body, and thus, it appears that the victim's body and the victim's body could not be removed from the victim's body.

In addition to the above circumstances, taking into account various sentencing conditions, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, and circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court Sentencing Commission, considering the following factors: (a) even though the Defendant is committed the instant crime; and (b) there is no specific criminal force other than the sentence sentenced on three occasions, the Defendant is isolated from society for an indefinite period, thereby holding the Defendant liable for strict liability corresponding to the instant crime; (c) defending the society from such crime; and (d) have the Defendant’s participation in life to the victims and had the time to reflect his/her wrong conduct, the sentence is determined as above.

However, since there is no possibility of parole for the defendant according to the current legal system, it is necessary to issue an order to attach an electronic device for 30 years in preparation for the case of parole, and impose the matters to be observed such as the attached list to the maximum extent possible.

Judges Park Jong-chul

Judges Shin Dong-dong