살인
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for nine years.
The sentence of the court below (10 years of imprisonment) with prison labor is too unreasonable.
However, the crime of this case is a punishment for dispute with the victim who was living together by the defendant, which caused the death of the victim.
The Defendant, while making the Defendant’s speech and behavior through the victim’s motive for the instant crime, insulting the Defendant, and committed a contingent crime while punishing the victim and his body fighting with the victim.
However, such circumstances cannot justify the crime of this case.
Due to the criminal act of the defendant, the victim suffered a serious result in the serious suffering, and the bereaved family members of the victim have also suffered a serious mental shock.
Nevertheless, there is no circumstance that the defendant made a serious effort to recover damage to his/her bereaved family members after the crime.
Such circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant.
On the other hand, the following circumstances can be considered as favorable to the defendant.
First of all, the defendant seems to have reached the crime of this case in a contingent manner while disputing the victim, and the defendant's mistake is found to be late and reflect in depth.
There is no record that the defendant was punished for violent crimes.
In addition, after committing the instant crime, the Defendant reported the instant crime to F by phone call to F, thereby enabling him/her to report to 112 on his/her behalf (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 64Do252, Aug. 31, 1964, which recognized the validity of the number of self-determination through a third party) and also tried to take relief measures, such as making a report to the Defendant himself/herself to 119 and sending the victim back to the hospital.
On the other hand, the self-denunciation is merely a ground for voluntary mitigation of punishment (see Supreme Court Decision 90Do1818, Oct. 23, 1990, etc.). In light of the circumstances leading up to the number of the defendants, the self-denunciation should be considered only as an element of sentencing.
B. Aara and the Defendant are the instant case.