However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 80 hours.

The defendant is a person who has worked for the Mick Vehicle Maintenance Company in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and is working in the same company as the victim's maximum 00 (23 years old).

On July 24, 2014, the Defendant was able to have a complaint against the fact that the victim, after the company, seems to have neglected to obey his/her usual direction, and that he/she was able to see the victim’s attitude. On July 24, 2014, the Defendant was able to reduce the driving force of the vehicle by cutting off the vehicle’s hub string, which was parked near the above repair company and cut off the vehicle’s car that was parked in the vicinity of the above repair company, as the Defendant was unable to hear the answer from the victim.

The Defendant, as seen above, acknowledged that the traffic accident may occur because the victim did not normally stop a vehicle while driving the vehicle while driving the vehicle, and that in the case of the tear, it could cause the death. On July 25, 2014, the Defendant was aware that on July 11, 2014, he was well aware of the Victim’s Bracks using a kacker in possession of at least 14, and the victim was able to stop the vehicle by driving the vehicle at around 20:0 on the same day, while driving the vehicle while driving the vehicle in a way to prevent the shock with the driver.

As a result, the Defendant attempted to kill the victim by damaging the devices of the victim's vehicle operation, but the Defendant did not commit an attempted crime by cutting the victim's vehicle at least, shocking the seat of the vehicle, and stopping the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police to ○○○;

1. Protocol of seizure (restricted Bracks);

1. The actual survey report and the report requesting appraisal;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 (Attempted Crime) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

1. Social service order;

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and three months to seven years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] homicide, Type 2 (General Mosing homicide)

[Special Contributors] Reduction: dolusorous murder, and minor injury (including non-injury)

[General Convicts] Reductions: Serious reflects

[Scope of Recommendation and Punishment] Special Mitigation Zone: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year from February to 8 years (the scope of sentence recommended to commit murder)

applicable to the lower limit of the scope of sentence for murder crimes 1/3, 2/3, and 3, respectively)

【Suspension of Execution】

- Major reference reasons: positive - None of criminal punishment, and minor injury (including non-injury)

- Reasons for general participation: positive - There are no criminal records of serious reflect or suspended execution or more;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than two years and three years of suspended sentence; and

The Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the brash of a vehicle can die due to a traffic accident, cut off the driver’s car balke. This is a large traffic accident, and thus, is a highly dangerous crime that may cause human life damage not only to the victim but also to the people unrelated to this case. Accordingly, the Defendant needs to be punished strictly.

However, the Defendant recognized a mistake and runs a profoundly against the Defendant. In the meantime, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no conclusive intention of murder beyond the willful negligence at the time of committing the instant crime seems to be false, in view of the following: (a) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment; and (b) the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment. The Defendant’s detention against the Defendant is a first offender with no record of criminal punishment. There is risk of excessive difficulty to his or her dependants to his or her dependents.

In addition, all the sentencing conditions shown in the argument of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, etc. of the defendant, shall be considered as the order.

판사 김샛별

Judges Shin Sung-sung