(homicide) Violation of the Special Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

(Housing Rape, Rape, etc.)

2012 Jeonno342 (Joint Attachment Orders)

(a) Defendant and the respondent for an attachment order;

Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an electronic device (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”) have been divided in depth and reflected the wrongness of the Defendant. Moreover, the Defendant continued to engage in life in the previous crime and has endeavored relatively in good faith to return to society. The instant crime was committed by the Defendant due to the retroactive application of the electronic device attachment order to location tracking devices, resulting in almost loss of the Defendant’s desire and expectation to return to society, and the occurrence of decentralization and self-conscept. Of these, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, and the Defendant reported the police officer to whom the rape was dispatched, and the crime of rape was committed by the Defendant was committed by contingently at the end of very serious depression. In addition, considering the following factors, comprehensively taking into account the Defendant’s unexpected growth process and the sentencing conditions, such as family environment lacking in mind, the sentence imposed by the lower court is unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The Defendant committed the crime of robbery, injury, and rape several times, and completed the execution of the sentence of imprisonment, which was sentenced to 18 years in total, prior to the instant crime, and was subject to the order to attach an electronic tracking device for the seven-year period. Nevertheless, the Defendant committed the instant crime of assaulting the victims’ residence and threatening the victims, and committing rape or cruel murder by threatening them. In this regard, the Defendant’s imprisonment alone is difficult to expect the suppression of crime. Considering these circumstances, according to the results of the judgment conducted by the Defendant, the risk of recidivism was extremely high. Considering these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendant is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant should be sentenced to death penalty, which is the maximum statutory penalty.

2. Determination

A. The part of the defendant's case (e.g., unfair form)

The Defendant, as a matter of course, went into the way to rape the victim E, sprinking the sprink and excessive strings of the said victim’s house to threaten the above victim’s house, sprinking the loss by the sprinking of sprinking it, and rape the above victim. In addition, after 13 days from that, the Defendant tried to detect the victim K who was carrying his children on a school bus while preparing for excessive and construction tape, etc. in order to rape on the new wall, and searching for rape in order to find the victim’s house, and spack the said victim by threateninging the said victim’s house, but the Defendant tried to rape by stopping the said victim’s house without resistance, and then opened a door at the end of the movement with the Defendant, the Defendant reported the victim’s dispatch to the police officer at home, and made it difficult to see the victim’s knife immediately before and after the entrance and the knife immediately.

In light of the contents of each of the crimes in this case, it is very serious that the applicable law has been bruptly interviewed, cruel, and the result is very serious. In particular, the victim's husbands and the husbands who are not able to be expressed as the result of the death of the victim's body, and the victim's husbands and the children who are still in English are found to have been dead at Abrupted, and when considering the brupted brut brus of the five dead children, on the other hand, they are brut and brut, and on the other hand, they do not seem to have any other way. The depth of the victim's chest like the brush of the rape victim's chest, and there is no choice but to have been any mental shock and pain in the future for a long time.There is no way to open the society.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, on the ground that he was found to have committed a crime against the criminal justice system, such as attachment of an electronic tracking device retroactively, and on the ground that he was raped and she was found to have committed a crime of sexual assault against ordinary women, and was committed to a prison by attempting to enter the prison. On August 11, 2004, on the ground that the police officer called up without his sexual desire was unable to escape and all of the victims were knifeed. In light of the above Defendant’s statement attitude, it is against the law, but it is difficult to view that the Defendant was arbitrative. Moreover, even before the instant crime was committed, the Defendant did not go against the Defendant’s speech, but did not go against the Defendant by excessively threatening female women’s house, and did not commit a serious rape, and even after having displayed his ability to enforce the Act on Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims, etc., the Defendant did not have been sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than 17 years (special rape).

Based on these circumstances, the prosecutor sought death penalty and appealed against the judgment below that sentenced the defendant to life imprisonment. In light of the history of punishment, the punishment basically takes response punishment prior to social defense and educational functions. In order to realize judicial justice called the realization of national penal authority, the defendant should be sentenced to punishment corresponding to the crime, and the discussion on the expanded application of individual criteria for all cases in certain special cases such as the universal ideology of respect for life and the prevention of misunderstanding risks, is not significantly helpful in understanding the strict justice in this era where the crime of malicious harm to the life of a good citizen is committed. In light of the criminal power of the defendant, the number and contents of the crimes committed by rape, rape, the degree of aggravation thereof, his reason for the crime, and the fact that the defendant's responsibility is prone to the victim and society, there is no room to see that the punishment of death and behavior should be improved in the future.

However, the death penalty is a extreme punishment in the sense that the death penalty brings about the extinction of life as a punishment that takes the foundation of human respect into consideration. In addition, considering the fact that it is a very exceptional punishment that is a brush punishment that deprives human life itself smoothly and that it is a very exceptional punishment that can be presented by the State’s sexual judicial system, the sentence of death penalty shall be exceptionally allowed only in cases where there are objective circumstances to recognize that there are special circumstances that can be justified in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment, and even if we think that there is no room for any other choice. This does not mean that the death of the victim is deemed as unfortunate, and it does not mean that it takes place. Since even though the death of the victim is a dynamic but there is no only one, the criminal defendant who committed a brut crime that cannot be used, even though he/she committed the crime, it is the minimum demand for the Constitution and the judicial system of the Republic of Korea.

While criticisming the Defendant’s crime, the instant case, from the above point of view, does not seem to have been the first purpose of murdering even though the Defendant cruel murdered the Victim K. In addition, even though the cause of the Defendant’s criminal act is attributable to the criminal justice system and society, there is a lack of the intent to recognize both the Defendant’s criminal act and wrong in the lower court and the trial, and seek a letter to the victims. On the basis of the fact that the Defendant’s reflective and misjudgments the Defendant’s aforementioned reflective and misjudgments, it is desired that the Defendant may be able to repented, satisfe, satch, nature, and behavior drastically. In that sense, even if the possibility of edification is the same as the actual category, it cannot be concluded that there is no possibility of edification, and that there is no objective circumstance to recognize the death penalty even if there is any special circumstance that can be justified.

Considering the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, academic background, career experience, and family environment, all the sentencing data and the above permitted conditions on the sentence of death penalty recorded in the records, the sentence of death penalty should only be exempted at the end of a long time and at the end of a long time. However, since punishment other than extreme punishment is no more than imprisonment for life in our legal system, it is no longer prescribed in our legal system, it is reasonable that the defendant has to be sentenced to imprisonment for life and forced the defendant to participate in his/her misconduct through a prison life without setting a period in the future and to live in mind for the victims and their bereaved family members.

Therefore, since the sentence imposed by the court below is appropriate, each of the defendant and prosecutor's arguments on unfair sentencing are not accepted.

B. Part of the attachment order case

When a defendant and a prosecutor have filed an appeal against each prosecuted case, each appeal is deemed to have been filed regarding an attachment order case pursuant to Article 9(8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, the defendant, a defense counsel, and a prosecutor did not submit any grounds for appeal as to this part, and even if examining the judgment of the court below, there is no ground for ex officio investigation and reversal as to this part.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 35 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Young-young

Judges Kim Gin-tae