On March 2009, the Defendant reported the marriage of the Defendant at around 1987, the Defendant had been living together with the victim in the detached house located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, about 13 times from March 2009, and had two children live together with the victim. From around 2002, the Defendant was working as a park in the ○○○○ Product Chin in Busan, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

The victim, while driving a business taxi for 15 years from around 2012, had been driving a private taxi, had a lot of days of drinking without driving it. At each time of drinking, the Defendant and her children have expressed abusive and assaulted against them. The Defendant made two times around October 23, 2013 and around September 9, 2014, and used verbal abuse and assault against them.

On March 6, 2015, the Defendant: (a) 18: around 00, the Defendant was going to leave a bed from the victim’s relative couple and scams. (b) At the same time, the Defendant was in contact with the victim, and she continued to drink lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd lurd k

Even after entering the house, the victim continued to drink the defendant's life, frighten by the defendant's friendship, and fright and children's friendship, and 02:0 on the same day, 06:0 on the same day, 12:00 on the same day on the same day after the defendant fright at the face of the defendant on the ground that the defendant frighted to fright, fright and sound on the ground that the defendant frighted to fright at around 06:0.

The victim, even after shouldering from a locking, re-samping the Defendant again, and the Defendant, at the convenience store near the house, continued to string three illnesss to a toilet to see a string, and to see a string of the same day, but he was under the influence of alcohol, but he was unable to bring the body of the Defendant, and was placed on the floor and the room.

At around 23:26 on the same day, the Defendant asked the victim who she was enjoying on the inner floor of the inner floor to see whether it would be Appp, and "the victim respondeded to it," and the victim told that "the victim should not speak," and "the victim should see it," and "the victim should see it."

The Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant heard and tending the horses of the Defendant, stated that the Defendant “the Victim was frightened,” “The Victim was killed of the Victim by having the Victim died of the Victim with a strong pressure from the fright so far as it is difficult for the Victim to kill the Victim by dracking him.” The Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol, frighted on the body of the Victim who was under the influence of alcohol, and frighted on the part of the Victim who was under the influence of alcohol, and frighted on the part of the Victim, who was under the influence of alcohol, and frighted on the part of the Victim, with the Victim’s hick with a strong pressure.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Legal statement of the witness ○○;

1. Statement of the police statement by an officer of ○○○ for reference;

1. A written result of autopsy and a result of autopsy;

1. Appraisal of actual condition survey reports, field photographs, site photographs, suspects, victim photographs, DNA identification samples of detained suspects;

Request for appraisal and appraisal request report;

1. A criminal investigation report (the receipt of a suspect 112 report (the confirmation of the case of damage)), a criminal investigation report (the result of autopsy preliminary examination), and a criminal investigation report;

(112 Attachment of a recording file of a declaration)

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

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

Judgment on the defendant and defense counsel's claim of mental illness

According to this legal statement of the defendant, it seems that the defendant suffered considerable mental suffering due to the victim's family bomb for a long time.

However, in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the background and means of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s attitude before and after the instant crime; and (c) the Defendant’s emotional distress at the time of the instant crime; (b) the Defendant’s emotional distress was presumed to have shown in alcohol consumption, temporary aggressive behavior, and emotional instability; (c) however, it is presumed that there was no mental disorder, such as a systematic network or related accident; and (d) it does not seem that there was an obstacle to the risk of harm or decision-making capacity at the time of the instant crime; and (e) the Defendant did not seem to have lacking the ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for two years and six months to fifteen years; and

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

[Determination of Type] homicide, Category 1 (Murder homicide)

[Special Convicts] Reductions: Members who are not subject to punishment, number of persons who are self-employed

[Decision on the recommended Area] Special Mitigation Area: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months to five years;

[Scope of the revised Recommendations] Imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months to 5 years;

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for not less than two years and six months; and

The crime of this case brought about a serious result of infringing on the most respected value of a person's life by causing the victim to die in the victim's body by strokeing the victim's verbal abuse against the defendant, such as "hing hinger to Dricker," and then causing the victim's hinging from the body of the victim's body to light pressure. In addition, it is highly able to criticize the other party in that it is the spouse who has maintained the relationship of legal divorce for a long time.

However, while maintaining a marital life with the victim, the defendant suffered a considerable physical or mental pain for at least ten years due to the victim's family width, and seems to have caused the crime of this case.

The Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police immediately after the instant crime, and led to confession and reflect on the instant crime. Moreover, the victims’ large children expressed the fact that the Defendant had been suffering for a long time due to the victim’s violent inclination, and wanted to take the Defendant’s action.

Such circumstances shall be considered as favorable to the defendant in light of the circumstances favorable to the defendant, and all factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments of this case, such as the age, character and conduct, home environment, and circumstances after the crime, shall be comprehensively considered, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered.

Jurors verdict and Sentencing Opinion

1. Do verdict;

Defendant: 9 jury

Innocence: Ten jurors;

2. Sentencing Opinion

Three years of imprisonment: Five jurors.

Imprisonment for a term of two years and six months: two jurors;

Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and June: One juror;

5 years of imprisonment: One juror.

For the above reasons, this case is judged as ordered through a participatory trial according to the defendant's wishes.

Judge Jeon Sung-sung

Judges Maximum Beneficiaries