Residential Lighting Time

reference domicile Haban-si Haban-dong

Attorney Lee In-bok

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

From 2004 to 2008, the Defendant was in a de facto marital relationship with the victim Kim○○ (50 years of age) and reported the marriage around 2008. The victim was diagnosed with a rare or incurable disease in around 2006, and performed brain flasing operations around 2009, and the victim was in a long-term care hospital, etc. from around October 2016 to around 2016, and was under medical care with the help of a care doctor in a house from around November 2016.

Nevertheless, the Defendant reported from July 23, 2017 to 15:00 on July 23, 2017 that from 00 to 15:0, at the inside of the bank of 504 dong 506, 506, the Pib, which was inserted for food consumption in the victim’s clothes, was missing for an unforeseen reason. However, deeming the victim to undergo an operation for inserting the Pib would incur pain and have a long-standing nursing, and send the victim as it is. The Defendant did not take necessary measures such as having the victim undergo an appropriate treatment by transporting the victim to the hospital, and abandoned the victim for five days from that time, and caused the victim’s death due to lack of nutrition at the same place. < Amended by Act No. 14538, Jul. 28, 2017>

Accordingly, the defendant abandons a person who needs assistance due to illness or other circumstances and caused the death.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 275(1) and 271(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the argument

The defendant did not escort the victim to a hospital, and continued to nurse the victim, and does not abandon the victim. Even if the defendant abandons the victim, the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms, and thus, the illegality is excluded.

2. Results of the jury verdict;

Defendant’s Opinion: Nine persons (per day):

3. Determination:

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the victim was able to take adequate food only through the brush inserted in the brush. Even if the Defendant reported that the brush was missing, the Defendant did not take measures so that the victim was escorted to the hospital to go back to the hospital, and did not take proper treatment, such as re-injecting the brush. This can be evaluated as abandoning the victim as being not necessary for the survival of the victim. Thus, it is recognized that the Defendant abandoned the victim as stated in the facts of the crime and caused the death of the victim.

In addition, since the defendant's act does not seem to be justified as a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From 15 up to 15 years of imprisonment;

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

[Determination of Type] Where the result of the death of a person who has been arrested, detained, abandoned, abused, or abused has occurred, 1

Type (Death or injury caused by abandonment or abuse)

[Special Mitigation] The motive for committing an offense to be considered

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months to 3 years (the area of mitigation)

3. Determination of sentence;

Although the defendant, as his spouse, has a duty to protect the victim's survival, he did not fulfill his duty to protect the victim, resulting in the result of the victim's death.

However, the Defendant took care of the victim who was frightened for a long time and experienced economic difficulties, and repeats the pain treatment process that inserting the brush, considered that not only the Defendant but also the victim did not transport the victim to the hospital, and there are circumstances to take into account in that period. The Defendant was extremely nursing the victim for a long time, and did not transport the victim to the hospital even after the brush, but did not transport the victim to the hospital. The Defendant continued to look at the victim, such as taking the victim’s frighten on the upper part of the body. The birth of the victim who is a bereaved family member was called to the victim, and the mother of the victim did not want to be punished by the Defendant. The fact that the Defendant did not have any history of criminal punishment is favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of these circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances surrounding the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

4. Opinions of jurors on sentencing

- Two years of imprisonment, three years of stay of execution; one person;

- Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, two years of suspended execution: Eight persons;

For more than one reason, the instant case is decided as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

Judges Kim Hyun-ju

Judges Kim Jae-soo