One kitchen which has been seized (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

In 2012, the defendant, as a Chinese family member, was divorced from the victim C in 2012 and tried to harmonize with the victim's judgment while living in the same country, but refused to do so, and had a serious complaint against the victim living together with another male.

On October 13, 2015: the Defendant: around 17, at the Defendant’s house located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, left the Plaintiff’s back part of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s part of the Defendant’s part of the Plaintiff’s part of the house located outside the house, was unable to enter the Defendant’s back part of the house by milching the Plaintiff’s back part of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant’s part of the house was required to leave the Defendant’s part of the Defendant’s house, and the judgment defects were so vague that the Defendant would continue to refuse the Defendant’s proposal and come at the house to kill the victim. The Defendant’s part of the kitchen (34 cm in total, 34 cm in length, 22 5 cm in length, 4 cm in length, and so on) and the part of the Defendant’s part of the kitchen, with the Defendant’s part of the Plaintiff’s death and the part of the Plaintiff’s part of the body, such as the Defendant’s death and the part of the Plaintiff.

As a result, the defendant tried to kill the victim with the kitchen knife, but reported the victim who flife flife flife flife 119 and so reported flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flife flifflif

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendant had no intention to murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

2. Determination;

The intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as a purpose of murder or a planned intention of murder, but rather it is possible or predicted that there exists a possibility or risk of causing another person's death due to one's own act, and its perception or prediction is conclusive, as well as a so-called willful negligence even if it is uncertain. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was no criminal intent of murder at the time of the crime, and only there was only the criminal intent of bodily injury or assault, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime 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 prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, and the possibility of causing the death (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do15144, Jan. 13, 2011, etc.).

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that there was an intention to kill a victim at the time of the crime of this case by comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances, i.e., the kitchen knife used by the Defendant for the crime of this case, i.e., the kitchen knife amounting to 2.5 centimeters in length), ii the part of the Defendant with the victim, which is the part of the part of the victim, which is the part of the victim, ii) the part of the victim, which is the part of the victim, iii the victim, and the part of the kitchen knife in this case, and the part of the kitchen knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife

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] homicide, Ordinary homicide (no special sponsor and general sponsor)

[Scope of Recommendation] Five to 8 years (the lowest sentence is a crime of murdering, so the lower limit is 1/3, the upper limit is 2/3, and the upper limit is 2/3, and the lower limit is determined by law applicable.)

3. The crime of this case committed by a judgment of sentence is one of the sentencing factors unfavorable to the defendant, for the following reasons: (a) the victim, who is a prior wife, has been divorced, has been placed in knife five times on the ground that the victim does not accept the request for the judgment; (b) the victim has suffered serious bodily injury; and (c) the victim seems to have suffered a big impact on the victim as a result of this, not only the victim but also the mental suffering;

However, the crime of this case is a sentencing favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant appears to have been punished by contingently during a dispute with the victim, although the defendant was willing to have a victim, it seems that his/her own mistake is divided in depth, and that the mother bears KRW 10 million out of the medical expenses of the victim. The above sentencing factors are the sentencing factors that are favorable to the defendant, and the sentence against the defendant is determined as ordered in consideration of the defendant's age, character, conduct, environment, etc.

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

Judges Kim Jae-in

2) 105 pages of investigation records