On the other hand, the Defendant was living together with the victim Gangseo-○ (Yeman, 50 years of age) and around 2005 to 2006, and the Defendant found several times of dialogues, but the victim did not comply with this, and the Defendant was unable to respond to it, and thus, ○○ Transportation ** * * * * * ever-time bus where the victim did not comply with it. Nevertheless, the Defendant was able to kill the victim when the victim did not continue to respond to it.

On March 25, 2017: around 44: ○○ Transportation in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Mayang-ro** ** * The defect in conversations with the victim only one hour after all bus passengers get out of the bus, but the victim had purchased gasoline in advance before the victim did not answer it to this, ○○ Transportation **** * * the bus front portion of the repair cost with a string with a string, which the victim had been in possession of the victim's telegraph, and caused the victim's death by blood shock around 80% of the entire skin. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 27139, Apr. 7, 2017; Presidential Decree No. 28139, Apr. 7, 2017>

Accordingly, the defendant set fire to and burns an automobile in which people exist and caused the death of people.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under the latter part of Article 164(2) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant dusted the victim’s gasoline in front of the driver’s seat, and the victim’s body was fluored, and the victim’s body was fluorized. The Defendant, on the premise that the victim’s body was fluort with a fluor’s own fire, she saw the fluor as his hand and tried to threaten the victim, and she was put to the front part of the bus with the victim. The Defendant did not have any intention to murder.

2. In full view of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the Defendant can be sufficiently recognized that there was an incomplete intention to kill the victim by setting the bus at least. The Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable.

① According to CCTV video (Evidence No. 24 No. 24, the evidence), the Defendant may see that the Defendant sits down the right side of the bus driven by the victim, and naturally, she shot the front part of the driver’s seat and the victim, and then, she is able to see that the Defendant gets off the bus from the machine to the front part of the driver’s seat.

② At the police station, the Defendant saw gasoline on the side of the driver’s seat where the victim was the victim. The Defendant made a statement that she saw gasoline on the part of the victim that she was frighted and frighted to the victim (Evidence No. 145, 147 pages). The Defendant also made a statement at the prosecution that she was frighted with the victim’s death (Evidence No. 199 of the Evidence Record).

③ At the time of the instant case, a large amount of gasoline was scattered in front of the bus, and it was sufficiently anticipated that, on an emergency, a bus was sealed in a closed space, it would be possible to move the bus to the victim.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 30 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] No. 3 / Death or injury caused by fire, such as main building, etc. (Death or injury caused by fire, such as main building, etc. (Death or injury caused by homicide))

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Crumar Criminal Treatment Act

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation

[Extent of Recommendation] Determination of sentence of imprisonment between 15 and 30 years, imprisonment for life and 3. Sentence

The defendant has difficulty in driving due to brain color, etc., and suffered severe images from the crime of this case.

However, the instant crime was committed on a planned basis to kill a victim on the ground that the Defendant did not respond to the conversation, and subsequently, led the victim who drives the bus to die by shot dusting gasoline and breaking the bus, and resulting in the victim’s death. In light of the developments and results of the instant crime, and the method of committing cruel crimes, etc., the nature and circumstances of the crime and the crime are very bad. The life of a person who committed the instant crime was infringed upon, and the victim’s family members were suffering from an unbrupted injury and pain. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not receive a letter from the victim’s bereaved family members or did not take any measures to recover damage, and instead, avoided the Defendant’s liability to the effect that it would threaten the victim. The Defendant committed the instant crime more than 20 times, including the suspension of the execution of the second violent crime, and the instant crime was committed during the period of the suspension of the execution of the sentence of the attempted crime.

In addition, the defendant's age, character, career, family relationship, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, criminal records, and all the sentencing circumstances shown in the records and arguments shall be determined to be sentenced to the defendant.

Judges Hong Sung-gi