Attorney Q, S in charge

1. homicide;

The Defendant continued to receive treatment, consultation, etc. from high school to the present time, while taking medicine while receiving outpatients from high school to a hospital for the treatment of mental illness. Posaa hospital and Seoul ba hospital have been diagnosed as a result of a mental division disease, etc., and was recommended to undergo hospital treatment.

In 2002, the Defendant developed the victim B with the promise of marriage in 2005, and around July 2007, the Defendant was diagnosed with the urology and tried to put the problem into question with the victim due to the climatic loss caused by the climatic loss without telephone.

On May 3, 2008, the Defendant: (a) purchased blue tapes, food blades (20cc in length), plastic strings (lock cables) in advance in order to use them for threats during dialogue; and (b) stored them in the office of the Defendant located in ducheon-dong apartment complex in Busan East-gu, Busan.

At around 13:43 on May 5, 2008, the Defendant: (a) threatened the victim with a knife that was prepared in the subway station in Busan Metropolitan City with the Defendant’s house; (b) covered the victim with a knife with plastic strings; (c) kid the victim’s body with a blue tape; and (d) kid the victim with a blue tape; (b) left the victim’s knife while the victim flife with the victim; (c) the victim flife with the victim; (d) the victim flife with the victim; (d) the victim flicked with the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to mental division; (e) the victim was unable to suppress a sudden shock movement; (e) the victim was flifeed with the victim; (e) the victim was 10 knife with the cell phone; and (e) the victim was 8 knife with the victim’s k.

2. Murder, attempted crimes, and existing buildings and fire prevention;

After killing B as above, the Defendant was in mind of murdering her as a mental divided disease at the place where the state of mental and physical disability continues to exist, and the Defendant was able to kill her natives by cutting her friendship with the Defendant’s house and eating her body and then burning her body.

On May 5, 2008, at around 20:30, the Defendant viewed the victim C, the victim D, the victim E, and the victim F, who are friendly in the vicinity of the Busan East America, at the drinking place, and at the drinking point, the Defendant told the victims to drink the alcohol at home, and let the victims drink the alcohol at around 23:50 on May 5, 2008, and dice the victims and drink the alcohol.

At around 05:30 on May 6, 2008, the Defendant confirmed that the victims under the influence of alcohol were locked from the Defendant’s house, laid clothes on the floor of the living room, and had them spread back to the entire house through a ward, kitchen, room, etc. with a stringer who was prepared in advance and a single stringer attached on the clothes on the part of the Defendant’s house. Accordingly, the Defendant attempted to kill the victims by the Defendant’s house, which was the victims, but was the wind of the victims to escape from the lock, but the Defendant’s mother used as a residence by G and the Defendant’s H, who is the birth of the victims, as well as by setting a house of approximately 32 square meters in size.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of homicide), Articles 250(1) and 254 of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted murder) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of actual building fire prevention)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the crimes of attempted murder and the crimes of destruction of existing buildings shall be mutually between the crimes of homicide and the crimes of homicide, and the punishment specified for the crimes of attempted murder of a victim C with the most serious

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to murder, the punishment of imprisonment for life or attempted murder shall be selected, respectively.

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)2 and 3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes concerning murder with heavier punishment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Judgment on whether the defendant was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the crime under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. The mental disorder stipulated in Article 10 of the Criminal Act, as a biological element, requires that the mental disorder, such as mental disorder, mental disorder, or abnormal mental condition, is lacking or reduced in the ability to discern things due to such mental disorder. Thus, even though a person with mental disorder is a person with mental disability, if he/she had the ability to discern things or control action at the time of committing the crime, he/she cannot be deemed a mental disorder. However, in the case of mental disorder which is considerably fixed to a considerable extent, such as mental division, if he/she had the impulse in committing the crime and had the consciousness of the offender in the process of causing the crime, it is commonly related to the mental disorder, and in such a case, it is often probable that no mental disorder has been prevented at the time of committing the crime, and that there is a lack of capacity to control the act due to mental disorder, and that there is no possibility that he/she would be a mental disorder at the time of his/her regular examination and treatment without any specific opinion, and that there is no possibility that he/she would be a mental disorder at the same time with the mental disorder.

2. 이 사건 공판의 법정에서 진술한 피고인의 부(父)인 I의 증언, 살인미수사건의 피해자인 J의 증언, 피고인의 고등학교 시절 이후 친구인 K의 증언 등과 피료감호소 의사L이 작성한 감정서, 서울병원과 포항a병원의 의사들이 작성한 소견서 등 증거를 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 고등학교때부터 정신적인 이상 증후를 스스로 감지하여 병원을 찾아다니면서 이에 관한 상담을 받거나 처방을 받아 약물을 복용하기 시작된 이래 대학 4학년의 휴학생인 현재에 이르기까지 지속적으로, 치료, 투약, 상담 등을 받아왔고, 피고인의 부모는 그 관계가 상호 원만하지 못할 뿐 아니라 피고인의 부는 직장관계로 전세를 얻어 포항에 상시 거주하고, 그 모(母)는 부와 별거 및 이혼과 동거를 반복하면서, 주말과 공휴일에는 집을 비우는 것이 다반사여서 피고인은 홀로 방치되기 일쑤였고, 거기다가 모는 산후 우울증이 나타난 이래 소아성애 현상을 보이는 한편, 집안에서 식칼을 투척하거나 급기야 방안에서 종이에 불을 붙여 시부(父)의 사진을 태우는 등 정신질환이 심해졌고, 이로 인하여 6~7개월간 병원에 입원치료를 받기도 하였으며, 병원에서는 발가벗고 소동을 피우는 등의 이상 행동을 보임으로써 피고인으로 하여금 심각한 스트레스와 정신질환을 물려받는다는 공포감 등으로 심리상태를 혼란과 우울증으로 빠뜨렸고, 2007. 7. 경에는 수치 400이 넘는 중증 당뇨가 발견되면서, 위와 같은 우울증 증세가 극도로 가중되어, 눈이 멀고, 다리가 잘린다는 당뇨합병증에 관한 과도한 건강염려증과 함께 자포자기의 심리상태가 형성되어 피고인은 자신의 문제를 안고 몸 부림치고 있음에도, 항상 곁에 있지 아니한 그 부모는 피고인의 상태를 대수롭지 않게 여기다가, 마침내 포항시에 있는 병원에서 2007. 12. 31.부터 2008. 3. 19.까지 정신분 열증 등으로 치료를 받기 시작하였고, 당시 위 병원 심리사 M이 "환자(피고인)는 현재 전반적인 검사결과상 자살 및 살인과 같은 충동적인 생각이나 행동, 기태적인 내용의 생각 등 인지적 통제 및 방어기제의 이완을 암시하는 증상이 많고, 자기 존재가 상실되는 것에 대한 의심과 불안에 사로잡혀 있는 등 자아경계 및 자기정체감과 관련된 정신병리를 보이고 있는 상태로 판단되는 바이며, 특히 환자는 현재 피해의식이 많은데, 그 중에서도 가족, 모에 대한 적개심, 편집증적인 상념과 관련되어 있는 부분들이 상당함"이라고 심리학적 평가를 내림 바 있고, 이 법원의 정신감정촉탁에 따라 피고인의 신병을 한달간 유치한 상태에서 피고인에 대하여 정신감정을 실시한 법무부 치료감호소 의사 L은 "피감정인(피고인)은 정신분열병 환자로, 현재는 물론 범행 당시도 심신미 약 상태였을 것으로 판단되며, 현실 검증능력을 완전히 상실한 상태는 아니지만, 정신병이 범행에 간접적인 영향은 미쳤을 것으로 판단됨"라는 취지의 감정 소견을 제시한 정신감정서를 회신한 바 있으며, 이어 같은 취지의 소견을 기재한 서면을 추송한 바 있으며, 피고인이 저지른 일련의 계속된 범행 중 특히 피해자 B를 살해한 다음 사체를 안쪽 화장실에 두고 문을 잠근 다음 자신의 친한 친구들을 불러 내 볼링 등 운동을 하고 할인마트를 돌아다니다가, 양주와 소주를 구입한 다음, 피고인의 주거에 와서 밤새도록 술을 마신 후 잠든 그들을 살해하려 불을 질렀다는 점에 관하여는 그 범행의 방법과 전후 정황 및 검사가 주장하는, 자신이 세상에서 버려지고 친구들로부터 잊혀진다는 감정에 사로잡혀 그랬다는 그들에 대한 살해 시도의 동기가 납득할 수 없는 점이 있는데다가 피고인은 이 법정에서 검사의 질문에 대한 답변으로, 그때 자신이 왜 그랬는지 잘 모르겠다고 진술하고 있으며, 나아가 피고인은 자신의 주거에 불을 낸 후 도피하여 서울에서 자수하려고 기차를 타고 가다가 동대구역에 내려 그곳에 있는 경찰관서에 자수를 한 점, 피고인은 지금도 상시 약을 휴대하고 복용 중이며, 약을 끊으면 증세가 심각해져 정신분열병 고유의 이런저런 증세가 발현한다는 것이다.

3. It is true that not only the investigative agency but also the defendant's attitude and statement in this court can be seen as a normal person who clearly and externally without any problem. However, considering the defendant's medical history, family records, the defendant's ordinary character and behavior or present mental condition, the motive and circumstances of the crime in this case, and the contents of the crime, it is deemed that the result and opinion of the appraiser at a medical treatment and custody center and each hospital which diagnosed the defendant's condition as a mental divided disease can be believed to be reliable. Furthermore, considering all the above circumstances in detail, the defendant is deemed to have weak the ability to distinguish things or make decisions due to mental disorder caused by mental division at the time of the crime in this case, and thus, the prosecutor's assertion to the other purport, such as the rejection of the above appraisal opinion under the conditions before and after the crime in this case, is rejected.

Opinions of jurors on mental suffering from mental illness

The Defendant recognized that he was in a state of mental disability at the time of committing the instant crime. On the one hand, on the grounds of sentencing, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder at the time of serving the crime, and there was no history of criminal punishment in the past. Examining the conditions and circumstances before and after the Defendant’s study in the university, there was no history of having been subject to criminal punishment. Even though the Defendant intended to murder the victim in that the Defendant committed the instant crime by preparing for the lue typ, foodcar, plastic string, etc., even though the Defendant had an intention to kill the victim in advance, it is determined that the Defendant, who was excessively known to the victim around that time, was in an unstable mental state due to the victim’s response to the victim’s speech and behavior on the day of the instant crime, lost self-refluent capacity under the judgment of the imminent situation that the victim would leave. Moreover, the Defendant and the victim agreed to pay consolation money in an amount corresponding to each of the victims of the attempted murder and agreed to take into account all the circumstances such as the Defendant’s relationship between one another and the victim.

2. However, the Defendant attempted to murder the victim's neck on the ground that the victim was the victim at a distance of five years, and attempted to kill the victim's knife with a knife prepared in advance to conceal the victim's knife, murdered the victim's knife and chest part of the victim's knife with knife with knife, and tried to kill the victim's flife with flife with her flife's mind that he would be alienated from her her flife, and flife with her flife with flife with her own house, but she attempted to kill the victim's flife with the victim's flife with the victim's flife with the victim's flife. However, the victim's flife with the victim's flife.

3. The life of a person is very heavy and solid legal interests that can not be altered from what is on the ground. In particular, finding out the suffering and slicker of the victim's death is the young female of 25 years old who the victim sleeped and slicked with slickness. It is because the victim was killed by the defendant who slicked with slickness and slickness, and slicked with slickness of the victim's slickness. It is difficult to see that the victim's slickness and slickness cannot be recovered from the defendant's body and slickness without taking into account the following circumstances: the victim's slickness and slickness of the victim's slickness. It is difficult to see that the victim's body and slickness cannot be recovered from the defendant's body without taking advantage of slickness and slickness.

4. In light of all such circumstances and the age and character of the defendant, motive, means and consequence of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc., all sentencing materials presented in the arguments of this case held by the defendant to a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes, the court shall consider the jury's opinion and sentence within the period of punishment prescribed by law.

Judges Kim Gin-ok

Judge No. Doingk