(영문) 서울고등법원 2014.7.24. 선고 2014노68 판결

Two smartphones (No. 1), one main body of GMC computer (No. 60), one main body of AON computer (No. 61), one external fluor (No. 62), one (No. 62), one (No. 62), one (No. 63), one (No. 63), and one (No. 2L1 disease (No. 94) shall be confiscated.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal - Unfair sentencing

In light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s mistake is deeply against his/her own mistake and her participation; (b) the relatives of the victim wanted to dismiss the Defendant only; (c) the Defendant may be improved; and (d) the unique characteristics of the punishment as a penalty for death, etc., the sentence of death penalty imposed on the Defendant is too excessive and unfair.

2. Determination

(a) Requirements for a sentence of death penalty to be permitted;

Considering the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, it is an extremely exceptional punishment that can be introduced by the dual judicial system of a marry state. The death penalty is to be granted only when, in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment, objective circumstances exist to recognize it as being justifiable. Therefore, in sentencing the death penalty, the death penalty shall be determined only after thoroughly considering all the following: (a) the offender’s age, occupation and experience, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of criminal records, relationship with the victim; (b) motive for the crime; (c) the degree and method of preparation; (d) the degree of preparation; (e) the method and method; (e) the degree of the result; (e) the number of victims and the appraisal of damage; (e) the depth and attitude of the crime after the crime; (e) the degree of damage recovery; and (e) the likelihood of re-offending the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do493).

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the records, the following circumstances are recognized.

(1) The defendant's age, environment, growth process, occupation and experience, character and conduct, intelligence, education level

The Defendant was 29 years old at the time of committing the instant crime as a Pborn. In Incheon, the Defendant was 29 years old at the time of committing the instant crime, and the father Q and her mother were born in the middle of the second South, and living without sufficient economic difficulties between his father and the victim E (S). The Defendant’s father died around January 2008. As the Defendant’s father died, the Defendant purchased three-story houses due to the purchase price of the house which he had previously resided and the death insurance for his father’s father, etc., and the Defendant resided in the said three-story house, and the Defendant leased the said housing 1 and 2 floors to others as monthly rent, etc., and at the time of the Defendant’s father’s death, the Defendant did not have received the division of inherited property against his father’s property.

The Defendant completed the elementary, middle, and high school in Incheon and entered the department of the T College, and completed military service for 24 months in active duty service, and was discharged from the military service on November 2005. After graduating from the university around 2007, the Defendant was working as the DNA of the server management company from around 2009 to around November 2005, and was working as Kwikset service engineer. At the time of attending the high school, the Defendant’s curriculum was at the level of good or somewhat poor, and was evaluated as having good, good, good, positive, and well-known sexual character, and that he was friendly to others (Evidence record 3707 pages).

(2) Whether there was a criminal record

The Defendant is an initial criminal who had no record of the instant crime before the instant crime was committed.

(3) Family relationship between the defendant and victims

(A) During the growth process, the Defendant lived with his father or punishment as the victim D, and was unaware of the circumstances from the victim D in the process. After his father died, the victim D was expressed more frequently, such as the victim D’s autonomous payment to the Defendant. On November 2005, the Defendant was 21 years old, and around December 2005, at the church, F (V, the Defendant’s Dong and Dong's birth were called F. at the beginning of the school year for a considerable period of time than the Defendant, and was 0 years old and 7 years old and 0 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 20 days old and 7 days old and f.m., the Defendant was able to live together with the Defendant and f.m. at the victim’s funeral system. The Defendant was able to get off the victim’s funeral system.

(B) However, the victim D had conflicts with F, which were economically difficult due to the above marriage, and it did not enter F, even after marriage. On May 8, 201, immediately after the marriage between the Defendant and F, F, F, and F, did not gather drinking water to F, and the F, did not look at F. The victim’s 1st century and F. The Defendant did not look at F.I.D. The Defendant’s 1stmathm on the following day: “On the other hand, F.I.D.” No later than 2000, F.I.D. No more than 2000, F.I.D. No more than 2000, the Defendant was able to see the Defendant’s 1st century’s senthy and 3th day, and 1st day after F.I.D. No more than 200, the Defendant’s 1st day after F.I.D. testimony.

(C) After graduating from AP University, the victim E returned to Korea for four years from Canadian and Australia and had been working as a researcher for a company after residing in Canada for four years from her mother. While the victim E was not particularly bad, the Defendant was in the military service period of the Defendant, the victim E’s language training period, and there was no exchange between the Defendant and the victim E.

(D) Although F was a lux file, it was not possible to achieve this. From November 201, F began to work as an entertainment business establishment in order to punish living expenses. From around November 2011, F had a luxial relationship with other males since around 2011 to immediately before the instant crime.

(4) The circumstances and motive leading to the commission of the crime

Although the Defendant did not have a strong monthly rate, the Defendant changed 5 times to 5 cars owned before and after marriage, and F also purchased a large number of bags, cosmetics, oral remarks, etc., which do not fit the circumstances of the Defendant couple. The Defendant, along with F, took a trip to the country, neglected Kwikset service day, which was the main business. From July 201, 201, the Defendant went away from gambling and raised a large amount of money in Gangseoland frequently with F.

As a result, when credit card payments and loans have been accumulated, the Defendant and F have sold the above loan, which was donated to the victim D, and have repaid it. While disposing of the above loan, the Defendant and F continued to maintain the obligation to enter Gangwonland and to maintain a remote life, and the Defendant had been bad credit holder around January 2012, and F had been bad credit holder around March 2012. On July 2013, 2013, the total amount of obligations such as credit card payments and loans, etc. was 70 million won, and the interest on the loan, and all kinds of public charges were overdued.

Accordingly, on July 23, 2013, the Defendant and F sent a message on the method of lending a house under the victim’s name as security on the victim’s home on July 23, 2013, and the Defendant found at the victim’s home and requested the victim to help the victim by wrong guarantee and by committing fraud, but the victim D immediately rejected this request. The Defendant, after the victim’s interview, would be subject to criminal punishment on the part of the victim’s handphone. The Defendant would be har. h.a. on this day, he will be subject to criminal punishment. Finally, the mother’s face and face were h. I think about the death of the victim. Also, the mother or one-time h.e., he thought that he did not take action. The Defendant’s father and h. h. h., who did not know about the expectation. If the father and h. h. h., his mother did not live in an economic compromise between the victim, the Defendant and h. h. h. h. h. h. d. d. d.

In this situation, from the end of July 2013 to the beginning of August 8, 2013, F was unable to live as the Defendant, so that the mother of the city died and her will die, and the Defendant had the intent to commit the instant crime by having the victim die, and around that time, the Defendant and F conspired to succeed to the property owned by the victim D by murdering the victims.

(5) Preparation of crimes

Defendant and F discussed specifically the means of crime, method of concealment of crimes, method of concealment of carcasses, etc. under the direction of FF, with much interest and knowledge in committing murder. Accordingly, on August 1, 2013, the Defendant searched Internet regarding “adjudication of disappearance, declaration of death, and inheritance of property” on August 8, 2013, and searched Internet on the same model as the victim Ebbbic vehicle on August 8, 2013. Furthermore, the Defendant was exempted from 3% more than ordinary (2 weeks) at a mental hospital called around August 6, 2013 in order to use the victims for committing the crime. The Defendant purchased the Defendant and F, 100,000,000,000,0000,0000,000,0000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

(6) Execution of a crime

(A) Execution of murder crime

Around August 13, 2013, the day before the crime was committed, F told the Defendant to find his mother directly before the day on which he committed the crime, and made a decision in mind in response to his response. On August 13, 2013, the day of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) prepared for committing the crime; (b) sought economic assistance from the victim D; (c) but the Defendant requested the victim D to do so; (d) “I do not am sing down again; (d) I do not want to do so; (c) I refused the Defendant’s request; (d) I am back from the after of the victim D who fright to drink with the wire line; and (d) I am sing off the Defendant’s body with the victim’s right to use the phone; (d) I am sing off the victim with the victim’s body; and (e) the Defendant used the victim’s body to kill the victim with the victim’s body more than the victim’s body.

(b)Destruction of and damage to a corpse or commission of a crime concealing a corpse;

In order to conceal the body of the victims, the Defendant was placed at the new wall time, and first, the body of the victim D (Seoul High 159cm, 55 km) was laid at the between the victim E and the vehicle between the city big vehicle. The body of the victim E (as 180 cm for extension, 80 cm between body, 80-90 cm) was cut so that the body of the victim E could not move as they are, then, the Defendant took to the toilet 8 occ in order to make it possible to move, and saw the chest part.

After that, the Defendant, along with F, concealed the body of the victim E, sent the body of the victim to a close line, and concealed the body of the victim D, according to F’s direction, the Defendant, upon the F’s instruction, destroyed the body of the victims for the purpose of making it difficult to confirm the identity of the victim, such as removing the body of the victim E by carrying the head and finger part of the body of the victim E, breaking the body with a view to removing the body of the victim’s head and finger part of the body, breaking the body with a view to cutting off the body of the victim’s hand, and removing the body of the victim E with a view to making it difficult to confirm the identity of the victim.

(7) The circumstances after crimes

(A) After killing the victims, the Defendant left several calls from the victims with their cell phoness, and left the chip of the victim’s house with the same indication that he had been waiting for the victim D several times. On the way on which the victims’ body was concealed, the Defendant worn some of E’s clothes and shoes, and removed the chip of the vehicle’s chip.

Even after the Defendant concealed the victims’ dead bodies, and returned back to the scene of the crime, it was difficult for the Defendant to clean the trace of the crime by cleaning the toilets, etc. using scams. In addition, during the period from August 18, 2013 to August 20, 2013, the Defendant was placed in the victim D’s house with gold Ban and New Zealand owned by the victim E, and the F disposed of the gold Ban around August 19, 2013, and exchanged New Zealand on August 20, 2013.

(B) On August 16, 2013, 2013, three days after the Defendant killed victims, the Defendant reported the disappearance to the police, was investigated as a witness by the police, and the mother no longer existed by making a phone call to the senior mother. The police began an investigation into the Defendant from the beginning, but the Defendant, as well as the vehicle operation, strongly denied the Defendant’s investigation, and the Defendant stated that, rather, the Defendant was suspected of killing the mother and escaping from the vehicle. The Defendant was arrested on August 22, 2013, and the emergency arrest was released on the same day due to lack of evidence. Even after the police investigation was conducted with respect to the Defendant and F, the Defendant and F denied the crime continuously.

On September 22, 2013, the Defendant was detained on September 2, 2013, and according to the F’s statement called the place of concealment of the body by the static-gun of Gangwon-do, the police, along with F on September 23, 2013, discovered the body of the victim D while searching for the camping of the static-gun. Upon the discovery of the victim D’s body, the Defendant started from the 7th interrogation of the police on September 23, 2013 when the victim D’s body was discovered (Evidence No. 3166 pages of evidence record).

(8) The intent of the victim's bereaved family

A. Q, Q, and W, the Defendant’s dynamics of the victim D, submitted a written application to the effect that they would be the Defendant’s wife at the lower court and the first instance court. AR, the Defendant’s external third village, was the Defendant’s wife at the trial. At the lower court, the Defendant’s senior mother submitted a written application to the effect that the Defendant was the Defendant’s wife at the court of first instance. Ultimately, the Defendant’s senior sibling and his family members were the Defendant’s wife at the court of first instance.

(1) As seen earlier, influence between the Defendant and the victim D is not only an economic assistance issue between the Defendant and the victim, but also the said victim and F, and the said victim’s marriage itself was caused by the marriage of the Defendant and F, where the said victim was located in the Defendant.

On July 23, 2013, the Defendant and F, as well as the victim D, intended to gather a loan by taking the above three-story housing owned by the victim D as a collateral, and decided to commit the instant crime between July and August 2013 and prepared to commit the instant crime.

Although the commission of murder against the victim D solely by the defendant, the defendant and the F, immediately after the murder was committed, the defendant and the F made a call related to the crime (the defendant and the F, while the investigation agency silented the facts related to the F and the crime, they known the F by telephone that they murdered the victim D, and the F, in the court of the court of the original instance, stated to the effect that it is necessary to file a yellow defendant, and to conceal the crime, and that the F would only have to die using the victim E.).

The commission of murder against the victim E was conducted solely by the defendant, but it was found that the damage of the victim's body to destroy evidence was done by F's attachment that had much knowledge and interest in the usual murder crime, and the concealment of the victims' body was conducted with the same vehicle as the defendant and F.

(2) Although the Defendant and F denied the crime at the time of the police investigation, the police's analysis officer was considered to be the center of gathering, planning, and executing the instant crime (Evidence Records 758 pages) in view of the fact that F's mergence, interest in the analysis of the criminal conduct, and the nethic and treatment experience compared to the Defendant on August 29, 2013.

In addition, on September 16, 2013, F changed the attitude of the 6th witness investigation by the police, and still denied the part of the victim's crime, that is, on the premise of the defendant's sole criminal act, the defendant stated that "the defendant is deemed to have concealed the corpse in the valley, the front reservoir in the Soul-gun, the Hacheon-gu, the Hacheon-si, the Hacheon-si, the victims of the victims, and the police did not find the dead body of the victims, although the police searched the dead body on September 17, 2013 and the dead body stated on September 18, 2013 by using F, and searched F on September 17, 2013.

Even after the Defendant was released on August 22, 2013, the Defendant continued an investigation against himself and F, and tried suicide at his own home on September 18, 2013, when various circumstantial evidence related to the crime revealed, but failed (the Defendant stated that the Defendant attempted suicide by requesting F, who was the wife on the third trial date, to do so).

As seen earlier, F made a true statement about the place where the body of the victim was concealed, and as the body of the victim was discovered, the Defendant was led to confession. F continued to deny the part of his participation in the crime in the police, and committed suicide on September 26, 2013 on the following day: “In the prosecutor’s investigation, the Defendant was refused to provide economic support to the victim D before the instant crime, and the Defendant was unable to do so, and the F would not die and die, and the Defendant would die. After that, F would not be a vehicle or horse. After that, F would inform the Defendant of the specific method of murder or disposal of the body,” but F would not actually have made a statement to the effect that he did not participate in the instant crime.

(3) In the process of the trial of the lower court, the Defendant trusted a public defender through several interviews with the public defenders, and on the premise that it was impossible to keep secrets on the chests through the process of interview with his mother, the Defendant changed his statement during the trial of the lower court to the effect that he committed the instant crime in collusion with F, such as the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment, at the trial date.

In this regard, the trial conducted a statement analysis at the national digital forensic center with respect to F's statement in investigation agency that denies a crime. "F has made a detailed and detailed statement about the background of marriage between the defendant and the victim D, and the victim's verbal abuse and violence, etc., and provided sufficient information to understand the situation at the time. However, on August 13, 2013, which was the date of the crime in this case, presented evidence and asked questions about the circumstances and the facts of the defendant's conspiracy with the defendant on August 14, 2013, which was the date of the crime in this case. However, the statement was made in a non-convenous and secret manner, such as avoiding the statement and changing the contents of the statement in the investigation process on several occasions, and there was no reply to the credibility of the statement in the process of the defendant's conspiracy. It was also confirmed that the defendant's testimony was not made at the scene without any participation of the F's murder.

(4) On the other hand, F’s family members submitted a written application to the effect that F’s family members requested the Defendant who was sincere and faithful to the ordinary meeting of the lower court. However, in the first instance trial, the Defendant did not issue any statement of opinion. As to this, the Defendant, on the third trial of the first instance trial of the party, stated that “after appeal, the Defendant appointed a defense counsel on the side of the wife, and that the defense counsel did not express his/her argument to commit the Defendant’s sole crime, and rejected it.” On the record, the limitation of appointment of the defense counsel presumed to have been submitted on December 27, 2013 by the F’s family members, and submitted a resignation from office on February 6, 2014.

(d) Application of the sentencing criteria;

(1) History

The sentencing criteria for murder crimes were first decided on April 24, 2009 and applied from July 1, 2009 when public prosecution was instituted, and thereafter the sentencing criteria were modified on March 21, 201 and came into force on April 15, 201.

The current sentencing guidelines for murder crimes are modified on April 22, 2013 and applied to cases where public prosecution was instituted after May 15, 2013, and the current sentencing guidelines are applied to cases where public prosecution was instituted on October 17, 2013.

(2) Criteria for type of punishment and sentence

The current sentencing guidelines for the crime of murder are divided into five types depending on the motive of the crime and the nature of the crime, and the types of the crimes are divided into five types, and the punishment for recommended sentences are more severe. The first type is a crime with extenuating circumstances in the motive, which is a crime for which the victim's causes exist, such as murder, which is attributable to the victim, 'ordinary motive for murder, etc. due to the original relationship or the indemnite homicide as a crime by common motive, 'ordinary motive for murder, etc. due to the indemnishment in home, 'non-demnishing murder, etc. by the special law or monetary purpose', 'non-demnishing murder for the purpose of the crime by a serious crime', 'the combination of serious crimes by rape, robbery, etc.', 'the combination of murder by robbery', 'the 5 type' is an unspecified crime with extreme tendency of life, and 'the extreme semnishing death'.

The crime of murder in this case constitutes murder by murdering inherited property through property search. However, the fundamental motive of the Defendant’s resolution for murder was the victim’s rejection of the Defendant’s request for economic assistance. The Defendant’s father’s house and death insurance money, all of which were owned by the Defendant’s father, obtained the above three-story house under the victim’s sole name. As such, there was no division of inherited property by the Defendant. The Defendant’s share of KRW 100 million at around the time of the Defendant’s marriage, and the market price of the above three-story house was approximately KRW 40 million. Ultimately, the market price of the above three-story house donated by the Defendant does not exceed KRW 2/7, which is the share of inherited property of the Defendant. Moreover, the aggravation between the victim and the F, is the motive for the crime of murder in this case, and thus, this case also constitutes “ordinary motive” under the category 2.

(3)Aggravated factor.

The crime of murder against the victim D is applied to "the victim who is a lineal ascendant, which is an aggravated factor among the special sponsers," and the defendant prepared to commit the crime in advance through prior collusion with F as described in paragraph 2.b. (5). This constitutes "the planned murder, which is an aggravated factor among the special sponsers."

2.(6)(a) The Defendant killed the victims in the same manner as described in paragraph (2)(6)(a). The term "cruel method of committing a crime," which is defined as an aggravated element among special prisons, means cases where a person kills the victim by causing serious physical or mental pain beyond normal level, where a person is killed by fire, where a person was killed by using explosives, where a person was intentionally damaged the part of the body of the victim before murder, where a person was killed by using a lethal weapon, such as a knife, knife, etc., and other similar cases.

The crime of murder in this case does not constitute a cruel method of committing a crime, which is an aggravated element, as it was killed after cutting the neck of the victims by wire ropes (in particular, the victim E was killed after diving with water exemption).

The defendant damaged the dead body of the victims as described in paragraph (2)(6)(b), which corresponds to "the destruction and damage of the dead body, which is an aggravated factor among special prisons."

E. Comparison with other serious crimes cases

(1) In light of the seriousness of the death penalty, which is a punishment which deprives the human life itself of it, it is necessary to compare and analyze not only the conditions of sentencing for the case, but also the past sentencing cases for serious crimes, the nature of which is grave compared to the case in question. The court below did not appear in the records as to whether the past sentencing precedents have been suspended and reviewed to jurors or the full bench. Accordingly, the court of the first instance compared and analyzed the past sentencing cases for serious crimes through inquiry, etc. on the Minister of Justice. For comparison, the court of the first instance examined the cases where the death sentence has become final for the last ten years, and then examined the sentencing of the case in question, and then examined the sentencing of the case in question, and then examined the sentencing of the case in question, and then, it also examined the cases where the death penalty was sentenced at the first instance court but has been reduced by life imprisonment at the appellate court (However, the relevant sentencing guidelines are different, and this is indicated in the separate list as indicated in the separate list).

(2) First, according to the fact-finding findings, the number of death penalty being executed is 58 as of May 1, 2014, which became final and conclusive and is 16 cases where death penalty becomes final and conclusive after 2003 among them. Of the above 16 cases, the majority of the above 16 cases is a murder case involving multiple unspecified persons or serious crimes, such as the attached Table [finite Judgment], and is a murder case falling under the category 5 or 4 heavier than the instant case, and is a planned murder prepared in advance. In addition, in some cases, the "cruel Act on Criminal Crimes" under the current sentencing guidelines was used, and there was a criminal conviction, which was punished by robbery, injury, rape, murder, etc., against the relevant defendant. As above, the case for which death penalty becomes final and conclusive after 2003 is more than 16 cases among the crimes in this case as shown in the attached Table [finite Judgment], and most of the crimes in this case is no longer deemed to be more serious than 13 cases.

In addition, all of the cases for which death penalty has become final and conclusive are the cases for which Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 10259, Apr. 15, 2010) which prescribes the maximum of imprisonment for a limited term of 15 years and the maximum of the aggravated punishment is applied, and there is no case for which death penalty has become final and conclusive after June 10, 2010, when Article 42 of the amended Criminal Act which alters the maximum of imprisonment for a limited term of 30 years and 50 years applies.

(3) Of the instant crime, 13 cases in which life imprisonment was declared and finalized after 2005, among the instant cases of remaining life, such as the instant crime, are 13 cases. As compared with the attached table (a life imprisonment for continuing life), it is determined that the crime was more severe than the instant crime, but most of the instant crimes were similar or more serious (5 cases). As such, there are cases where the Act on the Number of Crimes was cruel and continued, as well as cases where the crime was committed, and there were criminal records, such as murder, bodily injury, robbery, robbery, etc., against the Defendant.

(4) Although the death penalty was sentenced in the first instance court due to murder after 2005, the case becomes final and conclusive after being sentenced to imprisonment for life in the appellate court. As compared to the attached list (the first instance court’s conviction confirmation of life in the appellate court’s sentence) as shown in the attached list, most cases are deemed to be where the crime of this case is more similar or more serious (4 cases) than the crime of this case. However, most cases are deemed to be where the crime of this case is more serious (4 cases). In light of the current sentencing guidelines, the case is a murder case involving a large number of unspecified persons or a combination of serious crimes, the recommended sentence of punishment is deemed to be more serious than the crime of this case of this case of this case of this case of which punishment is more severe than the crime of this case of this case of which punishment is more severe than the crime of this case of this case of which punishment is imposed. In some cases, it constitutes planned murder prepared in advance.

(5) As seen above, there is no minor case among the cases (16 cases) for which death penalty has been finalized since 2003, and among the 20 cases for which death penalty has been finalized by life imprisonment (13 cases + 7 cases), the more careful review of individual sentencing conditions is required in determining whether the sentence of death penalty is appropriate, if the case more serious than the case of this case for which death penalty has been imposed in the original instance is determined to have reached nine near half.

F. Determination of sentencing

(1) In the instant case, when the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife F was faced with their lives due to their waste and gambling, they conspired for the purpose of property inheritance, murdered and concealed the Defendant’s body to conceal the crime. As such, not only the seriousness of the result, but also the motive and content of the crime, it is apparent that the Defendant was too harsh and anti-humanized. In addition, as the court of the lower court stated in the sentencing grounds for death penalty, lineal ascendants were the object of the crime, as stated in the reasoning for sentencing the death penalty; (i) planned to kill the Defendant for the purpose of inheritance and concealment of the crime; (ii) the body was cut and cut; (iii) the Defendant prepared to commit the crime; (iv) the Defendant prepared to commit the crime in advance; (v) the Defendant planned to commit the crime with his hand and concealment; and (v) the Defendant was sufficiently aware of the victim’s right to receive the death; and (v) the Defendant was found to have been aware of the victim’s early stage of the crime, and (v) reported to the victim’s right to possess the victim’s body.

(2) 그러나 앞서 살펴본 양형의 조건들을 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉, ① 재산상속이라는 금전적 동기가 이 사건 살인 범행의 주된 동기인 것은 분명하나, 오랜 연애기간을 거쳐 피고인과 결혼한 피고인의 처가 시어머니인 피해자 D의 잦은 폭언 등으로 인해 우울증으로 정신과에서 진료를 받아야 할 정도가 되고, 생활고를 겪고 있던 피고인과 F에 대하여 경제적 형편이 나았던 어머니인 피해자 D이 경제적 지원을 계속 거절하자, 피고인과 F가 피해자 D을 깊이 원망하면서 이 사건 범행을 저지르게 된 점, ② 피고인이 자신의 어머니와 형에 대하여 이 사건 범행을 직접 실행한 이상 공모한 F에 비하여 죄책이 더 중하다 할 것이나, 2013. 7.말에서 2013. 8.초경 피고인의 처인 F가 피고인에게 이대로는 살 수 없으니 시어머니를 죽이고 자신도 죽겠다고 하자, 피고인은 차라리 자신이 피해자 D을 죽이겠다고 하면서 이 사건 범행을 마음먹게 되었고, 평소 살인 범죄와 관련한 관심과 지식이 많았던 F가 범행 수단, 범행 은폐 방법, 사체 은닉 방법 등을 구체적으로 제시함으로써 피고인이 형과 어머니를 살해한 후 형의 사체를 절단하고, 형과 어머니의 사체를 손괴 및 은닉하는 내용의 계획적이고 잔인한 이 사건 범행을 저지를 수 있었던 것으로 보이는 점, ③ 피고인이 범행을 자백한 직접 계기가 F의 지목에 따라 피해자 D의 사체가 발견된 점인 것은 맞지만, F의 당시 진술은 피고인의 단독범행을 전제로 피고인이 사체를 은닉한 장소를 수사기관에 알린다는 것인데, 사실 F는 피고인과 공모하여 범행을 저질렀고, 사체 은닉의 실행행위를 분담하기까지 한 터이어서 이러한 F의 진술을 양형요소로 참작하는 데에는 피 2인에게 유리한 측면과 불리한 측면이 모두 존재하는 데다가, 오히려 위와 같은 F의 변경된 진술은 피고인이 당심에서 말하는 바와 같이, 그 일주일 전쯤 피고인이 자살시도를 한 이유는 아내인 F가 대신 죽어달라고 부탁하였기 때문이라는 것과 연관지을 수 있어 보이는 점, ④ 앞서 본 바와 같이 양형기준의 특별양형인자 중 가중요소로 규정된 '잔혹한 범행수법'은 통상의 정도를 넘어서는 극심한 육체적 또는 정신적 고통을 가하여 피해자를 살해한 것으로서, '방화로 사람을 살해한 경우, 폭발물을 이용하여 사람을 살해한 경우, 살해 전 피해자의 신체 일부분을 고의로 손상한 경우, 칼이나 둔기 등 흉기를 사용하여 신체의 급소 등을 수십 차례 찌르거나 가격한 경우, 그 밖에 이에 준하는 경우' 중 하나 이상에 해당하는 경우를 의미하는바, 이 사건 살인범행은 양형기준상의 '잔혹한 범행수법'에는 해당하지 않는 점, ⑤ 피고인은 수사과정 초기에 범행을 계속 부인하다가 객관적인 증거가 드러난 이후에야 비로소 범행을 인정하기는 하였으나, 그 이후의 경찰 및 검찰 조사에서 자신의 범행을 모두 인정하였고, 원심 법정에서부터는 F의 공모 부분을 포함한 이 사건 공소사실 전부를 인정하였는바, 앞서 본 원심 법정에서 태도를 바꾸게 된 경위에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인은 자신의 잘못을 깊이 뉘우치며 이 사건 범행을 모두 인정한 것으로 보이며, 당심에서 제출한 피고인의 반성문의 내용과 피고인의 당심에서의 법정진술 및 법정태도 등에 비추어 볼 때, 피고인은 피해자들에 대한 죄책감에 스스로 괴로워하며 자신의 잘못에 대하여 깊이 참회하고 있는 점, ⑥ 피해자의 자매들인 피고인의 이모들이 원심부터 당심에 이르기까지, 피해자의 오빠이자 피고인의 외삼촌이 당심에서, 피고인의 고모가 원심에서 각각 피고인의 선처를 탄원하는 등 피해자들의 친족들이 피고인의 선처를 탄원하고 있는 점, ⑦ 피고인이 현재 30세로 비교적 젊은 편이고, 범죄 전력이 전혀 없는 초범이며, 성장과정 및 평소성행에 비추어 교화 개선의 여지는 있어 보이는 점 및 앞에서 설시한 사형의 선고기준이나 다른 중대범죄 사건에서의 일반적 양형과의 균형이라는 면을 종합하여 보면, 비록 앞에서 본 바와 같은 여러 가지 점에서 피고인을 엄중한 형으로 처벌하여야 할 사정이 있음은 충분히 인정되지만, 이 사건에서 피고인을 사형에 처하는 것이 정당화될 수 있는 특별한 사정이 있다고 누구라도 인정할 만한 객관적인 사정이 분명히 존재한다고 볼 수는 없다.

Therefore, it is inevitable that the defendant is a part of human being and the defendant is placed in the extreme form of deprivation of his/her life, which is the subject of death penalty, is an excessive punishment. Since punishment other than death penalty is no more severe punishment than imprisonment for life in our legal system, it is not stipulated. Therefore, it is reasonable that the defendant inevitably has imposed imprisonment for life with the defendant, who is in a state of isolation from society without setting a future period, and it is reasonable to have the defendant correct his/her mistake through the prison life and live with the mind of committing the crime of deceiving the victims.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading since the death penalty imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence.

The summary of the facts constituting the offense and the evidence recognized by this court is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court below, except for the addition of "written notice of the results of the statement analysis by the National Digital Pene Center" to the summary of the evidence.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 161(1) of each Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of causing, causing, or concealing a dead body)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment for life imprisonment with respect to the crime of genocide which is the largest punishment and crime)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of legal applicable sentences: Life imprisonment;

1. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Crimes of murdering surviving a judgment;

[Determination of Punishment] homicide, Type 3 (Murder with Unclaimed homicide)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravated Elements: A planned murder crime, damage to a corpse, or a surviving victim.

[Scope of Recommendation] 18 years to 45 years or more (special aggravation)

B. Crimes of murder

[Determination of Punishment] homicide, Type 3 (Murder with Unclaimed homicide)

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: planned murder crimes, damage to the body.

[Scope of Recommendation] 18 years to 45 years or more (special aggravation)

(c) Scope of modified recommended sentences: Life imprisonment (the above crimes with the sentencing criteria set and the crimes of concealment of carcasses and destruction and damage of carcasses in each judgment with no sentencing criteria set, are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the lower limit shall be set at the lower limit of the sentencing criteria set out in the sentencing criteria, and legal applicable sentences shall be considered);

1. Determination of sentence;

In consideration of the circumstances described in paragraph (2) above, the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment as ordered.

Judges

The presiding judge, public-private partnership

Judges Gamburh

Judges Invitations

Attached Form

A person shall be appointed.