Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

From early 2016, the Defendant became aware of each other with the victim through D, which is a spoke line and the third village of the victim C (the age of 43). The Defendant was detained while carrying on the import business of the spoke fish instead of the above D, and the Defendant operated the spoke fish business instead of the above D, and the victim was doubtful that the Defendant used the spoke fish business at will while carrying on the spoke fish business. Accordingly, the Defendant and the victim did not have a good reputation.

Around 03:00 on April 5, 2017, the Defendant she saw a phone on the ground that the Defendant she had talked with the victim in a bad manner when she was going to work in the Defendant’s dwelling at 502 Sinpo City E 502 and around April 4, 2017, when she was to work in a telephone with the victim on the ground that she had talked with the victim, but the Defendant her talked with the victim on the ground that she did not treat the said D with the victim, while she talked with the victim, she became more likely to have a dispute with the victim on the ground that she did not treat the victim as the victim. Ultimately, the Defendant saw the victim to murder the victim on the ground that she was in a bad way.

At around 04:10 on April 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) boarded and arrived at a taxi in front of the luminous establishment of the said “G” vehicle; (b) brought the victim waiting in front of the said “G” vehicle luminous establishment while getting off and leaving the taxi immediately before the said “G” vehicle luminous establishment, and attempted to murder the victim’s left side side knife once with a excessive amount (22cc in length, 11cc in knife, 2.5cm in width, 2.5cm in flife, 1 card No. 1) prepared in advance. However, the victim did not go to murder the victim at the site and did not go to the wind for the victim to receive treatment at the Central University Hospital after getting out of the taxi.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. Each written statement of amnesty against H and C;

1. Each photograph (Evidence 2,16,26);

1. Each investigation report (Evidence list 5, 10);

1. CCTV images and CCTV CDs (Evidence List 6, 6-1);

1. Certificates of medical treatment;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Requests for appraisal;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Attempted mitigation;

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

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

The defendant recognized the fact that he has placed the victim's left side of the road on the date and time of recording the facts of the crime and in the place of the crime. However, the defendant had the victim's intent to assault, and placed the victim's face twice twice in order to the victim's face, and there was no intention to commit murder.

2. Determination

A. The criminal intent in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the purpose of murder or the planned intention of murder, but is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also conclusive. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault but also the criminal intent of murder was committed at the time of the crime, whether the defendant was guilty of murder should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, type and usage of the crime, the existence of the prepared deadly weapon, the nature and repetition of the crime, the degree of the occurrence of the consequence of murder, the existence of the consequence of the crime, and the existence of the result of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do2231, Aug. 18, 200).

B. In light of the above legal principles, considering the following circumstances that can be recognized by evidence, etc., the Defendant may be recognized as having dolusent intent of murdering that the victim would have been able to die at least while recognizing that the victim would have died. Therefore, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

1) The criminal tool used by the Defendant is a deadly weapon that may cause death if he/she sets or labels the important parts of a road with a length of 22 cm in total, 11 cm in length, and 2.5 cm in width.

2) The Defendant reached the victim’s left side knife. The Defendant is aware that a large number of organs, bloods, and negos are essential parts of the body that go throughout the country, and that the death may result in the death of the side legorie if the side legorie is overwork.

3) The victim went from the Defendant to the police station boarding a taxi after knife with the knife. The victim got a considerable amount of back to the above taxi. The victim suffered injury, such as an open upper part of the knife which requires treatment for three weeks.

4) According to CCTV image (Evidence List 6-1), the CCTV near a place where a crime was recorded is found, the Defendant left the taxi at around 04:10 on April 5, 2017, where the son gets out of the taxi, caused the knife to the son knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

① In the above image, the Defendant appears to display his hand over the face rather than the victim’s face. ② When the Defendant first reaches the victim, the victim left behind the Defendant’s arm’s length, ③ the victim appears to have not been faced with the Defendant. The Defendant appears to have knife the victim behind the victim’s body. The Defendant, without the intention of knife with the knife, seems to have knife the victim without the victim’s knife, rather than the victim’s knife. ⑤ The victim knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif, it is reasonable to view the victim’s knife knife k.

5) At the time of being examined by the prosecution, the Defendant stated that “I have shown the victim's speech and behavior to be knifed in a knife at low time” (Evidence No. 243). “A suspect is confirmed to have knifed the victim twice in a taxi and reached knife the victim twice in a taxi, a suspect is confirmed to have knife the victim once in a single answer, and what needs to be asked, “I, I, I, as well as I, accept” (Evidence No. 280 of Evidence), “I,” “I,” “I,” “I,” “I, on the spot, have no fact that the victim has threatened the suspect,” and “I,” respectively, answer the reasons for sentencing (Evidence No. 281 of Evidence Records).

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

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

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

【Special homicide】 Intentional homicide, Non-incompetent of Punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 2 months to 8 years (Special Mitigation Zone)

* Short-Form : Murder

[Scope of the revised sentencing] One year and three months from March to eight years (the lowest limit of the sentencing range recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the scope of the applicable sentencing range in law, so the lowest limit of the recommended sentencing shall be set at the lowest limit of the applicable sentencing range in law).

3. Determination of sentence;

In light of the fact that the defendant attempted to kill the victim's side knife and the nature of the crime is heavy, and the defendant commits the crime of this case during the suspension of the execution of imprisonment and probation, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

However, in light of all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case, such as the fact that the defendant committed the crime of this case differently, the intention of murder of the defendant seems to have been negligent, and the fact that the defendant does not want the punishment of the defendant by mutual consent with the victim, the victim's age, family environment, motive of the crime, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The same judge's identity

Judges Lee Young-young