(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act;

(c) Murder;

(d) A criminal escape;

(e) Violation of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act;

(f) Violence;

2015No. 12 (Joint Attachment Orders)

3. b. D. C

(n)

Attorney AL

Attorney H (Defendant B)

Attorney I (for the defendant C)

Judgment

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years, by imprisonment for two years, and imprisonment for one year for Defendant B.

Seized swords (No. 1) shall be forfeited from Defendant B.

The prosecutor's appeal on the part of the judgment of the court below regarding the claim for attachment order against A shall be dismissed.

(a) Defendant and the person for whom the attachment order is requested (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant”);

1) misunderstanding of facts

Despite the fact that the defendant's crime of this case was committed by the willful negligence, the court below judged it as conclusive intention, which is improper.

2) The assertion of unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendants B and C

The sentence of the lower court (Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor of three years and confiscation, Defendant C: Imprisonment with prison labor of one year and six months) is too unreasonable.

(c) Prosecutors;

1) The part of the defendant case

Each sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is too unhued and unreasonable.

2) The part for which the attachment order is requested

The court below's dismissal of the request for attachment order against Defendant A, which is dangerous to repeat a crime, is improper.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. Defendant A

1) Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

The intent of murder is not necessarily recognized as the purpose of murder or the intention of planned murder, but it 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 so-called willful negligence. Thus, even if the defendant's crime of this case is recognized as due to willful negligence, it is reasonable to understand that the above argument of the court below is unfair since it is reasonable to understand that the defendant's above argument is just.

2) Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing

We also examine the defendant and prosecutor's respective arguments on unreasonable sentencing.

The Defendant’s crime of this case led to the death of the victim only by an act of 42cm in the blade length and 65cm in the total length) with one stop, and it is inevitable to punish the victim’s severe punishment corresponding to his responsibility, in light of the fact that the method of committing the crime is very cruel and that the victim’s suffering and suppression can not be measured, and that his bereaved family members also suffered a large amount of wound that cannot be able to lead a life.

On the other hand, it is reasonable to view that the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and seriously reflects the victim's bereaved family members in the trial, and that the victim's bereaved family members want to agree with the victim in the trial, and that the crime of this case occurred while the dispute between the victim and the defendant C was arbitration, and it is difficult to view that there was a planned crime in light of the circumstances of the crime, or a conclusive intention to kill the victim from the beginning. Although the defendant was sentenced twice to a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, it has been sentenced twice to a punishment of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which is 20 years ago, and there is no criminal power exceeding the fine, etc., in favor of

In addition, comprehensively considering the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, contents and result of the crime, various conditions of sentencing indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the range of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the Supreme Court Sentencing Committee, the punishment imposed by the court below on the defendant is deemed unfair. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is reasonable, and the prosecutor'

B. Defendant B

We also examine the defendant and prosecutor's respective arguments on unreasonable sentencing.

The Defendant’s crime of this case is inevitable in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s swords, without obtaining permission, can cause the Defendant to escape by making false statements to the investigation agency that he had killed the victim; (b) the Defendant’s crime of this case was committed by making false statements to the investigation agency that he had killed the victim; and (c) the Defendant committed the instant crime despite having been sentenced three times to suspended sentence, despite the fact that the Defendant had been sentenced three times to suspended sentence, and thus, he/she committed the instant crime.

On the other hand, in light of the fact that the defendant's mistake is recognized and seriously against the defendant, and that the defendant delivered swords under the direction of the defendant A, he did not actively assist the murder of this case; that the defendant does not cause the waste or confusion of investigation power by clarifying that his false statement on the following day after the defendant made a false statement at an investigative agency is false; that the victim's bereaved family members and bereaved family members and the victim's bereaved family members want to agree smoothly with the victim in the trial, and that the victim's family members want to leave the defendant's wife should be considered in favor of or in favor of the defendant.

In full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, motive or circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, contents and result of the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is deemed unreasonable. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit, and the Prosecutor’s assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

C. Defendant C

The crime of this case committed by the defendant does not know about the victim's face and chest, etc. while being in a repeated crime, and assaults the victim's face and chest, etc. by making a false statement to an investigative agency as homicide so that the defendant A escape by making him/her a false statement, and the circumstances and nature of the crime are not less than that of the crime, and even if there were criminal records of criminal punishment sentenced several times due to the crime of bodily injury, assault, etc., it is inevitable to punish the defendant with severe penalty corresponding to his/her responsibility.

On the other hand, in full view of the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive or background of the crime, motive or circumstance of the crime, method and method of the crime, contents, and result of the crime, the contents of the sentencing guidelines established by the Supreme Court's sentencing committee, the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is unreasonable. Accordingly, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified, and the prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit. The prosecutor's assertion of unfair sentencing is without merit.

3. Judgment on the part of the claim for attachment order

The lower court dismissed Defendant A’s request for an attachment order against Defendant A on the ground that it is difficult to deem Defendant A to have a risk of recidivism, in light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the prosecutor's assertion. This part of the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' respective appeals concerning the part of the defendant's case among the judgment below are well-grounded, the part concerning the defendant's case against the defendant A and the part concerning defendant B and C among the judgment below under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be reversed, and the following is judged again after the pleading. Since the prosecutor's appeal concerning the part concerning the request for attachment order is without merit, it is dismissed under Article 35 of the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders and Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts charged by the Defendants and the relevant evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the lower judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint assault and the choice of imprisonment), Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of homicide and the choice of imprisonment)

B. Defendant B: Article 71 subparag. 1, Article 12(1) of the Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, etc. Act (unauthorized possession of swords, Selection of Imprisonment), Articles 250(1), 32(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment, Selection of Imprisonment, and Selection of Imprisonment) (Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act)

C. Defendant C: Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of assault, the choice of imprisonment), Article 2(2) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint assault, the choice of imprisonment), Article 151(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of extradition, the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant C: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendant B: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to the crime of homicide and aiding and abetting murder)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the aggravated punishment shall be limited to the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

(b) Defendant B: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for the crime of aiding and abetting homicide with the largest punishment)

(c) Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes as provided for in the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, which is the most serious offense)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act ( considered as favorable circumstances in the judgment on the grounds of appeal)

1. Confiscation;

Defendant B: Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant A

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) First offense: homicide;

[Determination of Punishment] Types 2 (Ordinary homicide)

[Special Convicts] Reduction Elements: Self-denunciation, Non-denunciation of Punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Mitigation Zone: Imprisonment for 3 years and 6 months to 12 years;

2. Second offense: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and

[Determination of type] Violence 1 (General Violence)

[Special Convicts] Reduction Elements: Self-denunciation, Non-denunciation of Punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Special Mitigation Zone: Imprisonment of one month to eight months;

3) The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: Imprisonment for three years and six months to twelve years and four months;

(b) Determination of sentence: Ten years of imprisonment; and

The sentence against the defendant shall be determined as above in consideration of the various circumstances mentioned above.

2. Defendant B

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

The sentencing criteria are not set for the criminal facts committed by the accused.

(b) Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for 2 years; and

The sentence against the defendant shall be determined as above in consideration of the various circumstances mentioned above.

3. Defendant C

(a) Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

1. Second offense: Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act; and

[Determination of type] Violence 1 (General Violence)

【Special Convicted Persons】 Members not subject to punishment

[Scope of Recommendation] Reduction Area: Imprisonment of one month to eight months;

2. Second offense: Assault;

The scope of sentencing factors and recommendations shall be as set forth in paragraph (1) above.

3) Since there is a crime for which the sentencing criteria are not set, and between the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are set and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are not set, concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act are established, only the lower limit of the scope of sentence according to the sentencing guidelines for the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines are set shall govern.

(b) Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and

The sentence against the defendant shall be determined as above in consideration of the various circumstances mentioned above.

Judges Kim Jong-Gyeong

Judges Kim Yong-min