206Gohap122 A. Punishment of violence, etc., consisting of the crimes recognized as attempted murder

206Gohap156 (Consolidation) Violation of the Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc.)

(b) Violation of the Public Official Election Act;

(c) Attempted robbery;

(d) Damage to public goods;

○○ (00000 - 00000) - Duty-free

Residential ○ 00 0

Permanent address ○ 00 0

○ ○

Attorney ○○○ (Non Line)

August 3, 2006

Imprisonment with prison labor for each of the crimes of Articles 2 and 3 as stated in the judgment of the defendant 1, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 8 years or more.

The number of detention days before the judgment is rendered shall be included in the above sentence against the first crime as stated 75 days.

Seized kacker knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

The defendant, around 1984, was sentenced to four years of imprisonment with prison labor for violating the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act on August 22, 1985, and released on March 10, 1989 by the Seoul Criminal Court, on the ground that he was in a relationship between Kim △△△ and △△△△, a wife of the victim Kim ○○○, and his female, from the time when he was in a relationship with his wife Kim △△△△△, the defendant demanded the liquidation of the relationship, and he was released from his custody on the same day as his own on the ground that the above victim was sentenced to punishment by reporting it to him on March 10, 1989, and immediately after he was released from his custody on May 17, 1989 to December 14, 199, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same kind of protective custody from the Seoul Criminal Court on October 18, 191 to 19, who was released from the custody of the above 19th half of the protective custody.

While asserting that they had been harshly committed by correctional officers during the confinement in the Cheongsong lake and marsh, and talking around the society to prevent a big accident to inform the society, the situation of his detention has not been accepted 13 times in the National Human Rights Commission, the Constitutional Court, and the Cheongsong, etc., but the health and economic conditions such as the name of the Masong and the name of the Masong were worse. However, at the self-conscing court where the demand was received from the Masong who had lived with the Masong and Masong who had been her living at that time, it was self-consced that the Ma

In order to have an opportunity to inform the public of the anti-defluence of Hanna City City election campaign and its strong position on Hanna City City election campaign, the 4th place of mind to inflict harms on the major people of Hanna City election campaigned in the fourth national constituency election campaign;

On May 206, 200: 30, 00 the Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, 00 - 30,000 - the 4-day local election of the 5-day branch office located at the 5-day local election of the 5-day Seoul Metropolitan City Mayor, the 5-day branch office, waiting in the vicinity of the 5-day branch office, so as to attack the knife with the knife blades prepared at the 4-day election of the 4-day branch office. However, the 5-day branch office was waiting in the vicinity of the 4-day branch office, but the 5-day branch office was waiting in order to attack the 6-day branch office at the 4-day branch office, and the 5-day branch office was waiting to attack the 5-day branch office at the 5-day branch office, and the 2-day branch office was still able to support the knife and the 5-day branch office."

On April 27, 2006, 200 00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - the victim's house, but the victim did not come to the house and left his contact address and name to the management office, but on May 2, 19 of the same year, the victim did not contact with the other 0 - 4 - - - - 6 - - - - - 6 - - - - 1 6 - - - - - 4 - - 1 - 6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. -. -. -. -. -... -. -. -...............................

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Entry of each part of the protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Each statement of each prosecutorial statement on ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○○, ○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, Ma○○, 00, Ma○○, Kim○, ○○, and ○○○;

1. Each protocol of seizure;

1. Medical certificates and opinions;

1. Colorics and investigation reports (to be on the Internet screen page);

1. Previous convictions as indicated in the judgment: Criminal records, each investigation report (report attached to written opinions, accompanied by a copy of the interrogation protocol of suspect, a copy of the written judgment, and hearing of a telephone statement of ○○);

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Attempted charges: Articles 352 and 350(1) of the Criminal Act

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Article 257(1)3 of the Criminal Act

○ Interference with Freedom of Election: Article 237(1)2 of the Public Official Election Act

○ It damages public goods: Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc.) and a violation of the Public Official Election Act, and a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act with heavy punishment (a violation of the Act on the Punishment of Violences,

1. Selection of penalty;

Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of attempted threat and the crime of damage to public goods

1. Separation of concurrent crimes;

Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act (Article 18(3) of the Public Official Election Act provides that concurrent crimes that are different from those of an election criminal shall be tried and sentenced separately, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 38 of the Criminal Act. The purport of this Article is that other crimes that are not an election criminal shall be excluded from the application of Article 38 of the Criminal Act and tried separately to minimize the impact on the sentencing of the election criminal, and the punishment shall be imposed separately. As for other crimes in a mutually competitive relationship with an election criminal, the punishment that is the most severe one among them shall be imposed pursuant to Article 40 of the Criminal Act. In this case, in light of the legislative purport that handles an election crime differently in the Public Official Election Act and the legislative history of the amendment thereof, it shall not be asked whether the most severe crime that is punished is an election criminal, but shall be treated as a total election crime (see Supreme Court Decision 199Do15478, Apr. 1, 199).

4. 23. Therefore, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group or a deadly weapon injury) which is held in a mutually concurrent relationship with the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act in the judgment of the court below shall be treated as an election criminal under the Public Official Election Act, and the punishment shall be separately determined separately from the crime of attempted conflict and the crime of damage to the public goods in the judgment of the court below.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 of the Criminal Act, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 (Concurrent Crimes of Attempted Act and Damage to Public Goods in the Judgment, and Crimes of Attempted Act with more severe punishment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act provides that the defendant's assertion and decision

1. The assertion;

Although the defendant sent correspondence to the victim Kim ○ or found the house of the above victim as stated in the facts of the crime, he did not intend to borrow money from the victim.

2. Determination

The following facts are acknowledged by the evidence duly examined and adopted by this court. In other words, the Defendant: (a) committed several times from 1983 to 1984 by threatening the victim’s face of Kim △△△△, a wife of the said victim, and threatening the said victim to “to kill his family without giving money; and (b) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for more than four years; and (c) was released from prison labor for the said crime.

The above victim made several calls to the court that "I will not be held liable because I want to go to prison, I will see the relationship with his wife. I will see that I will see that I will see that I will go to school, or will see that I will see that I will see that I will see that I will go to prison, or will see that I will see that I will see that I will go to prison," I would like to see that I would like to see that I will be able to ask the victim to be able to take advantage of the victim's body, and that I would like to see that I would be able to ask the victim to be able to see that I would be able to take out the money from the victim's body, and that I would like to know the victim's address after the second crime, and that I would like to know that I would be able to ask the victim to be able to take out the victim's body's body, and that I would like to know that I would know that I will be able to know.

The reasons for sentencing are as follows: (a) the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act at the Seoul Criminal District Court on August 22, 1985, on the grounds that, prior to each of the crimes in this case, the Defendant demanded the liquidation of the relationship between Kim △△△, a wife of Kim ○○, in around 1984, and the female, among those having a relationship with the knife in the knife in the knife Kim △△△△, a wife of Kim ○,

After being released from Seoul High Court on March 10, 1989, the above Kim ○ was sentenced to punishment by reporting himself and punishing him. On May 17, 1989 to December 14, 1989, the above Kim ○ issued nine times the above Kim ○ on nine occasions immediately after he was released from the military court, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act at Seoul High Court on October 18, 1991, and was sentenced to seven years and protective custody for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act. The above crime was committed several times of violence, such as harming a correctional officer's face, assaulting a custody supervisor's work book, assaulting a prisoner who is treated in the medical room, or assaulting a prisoner who is treated in the medical room.

피고인은 자신의 위 각 범행으로 장기간의 수형생활을 하게 되었음에도 이에 대하여 반성하기는커녕, 오히려 출소 후 자신의 불만을 표출하고 세간의 주목을 이끌기 위하여 한나라당의 유력인사에 대한 폭력범행을 계획하였고, 그리하여 2005. 12. 무렵 한나라당 곽성문 의원을 폭행하였으나 별 효과가 없자 더욱더 극단적인 방법을 모색하다가, 2006. 5. 무렵 지방선거 유세 현장에 참석한 한나라당 대표 박근혜에게 상해를 가하는 이 사건 범행을 저질렀는바, 여성의 안면을 칼로 베었을 뿐만 아니라, 그 상해가 오른쪽 귓바퀴 앞면부터 턱선을 따라 오른쪽 뺨에 난 곡선 형태의 길이 11㎝, 깊이 1 내지 3㎝의 안면부 심부열상으로서, 범행 수법이 지극히 악랄하고 상해의 정도 또한 매우 중하다 .

In particular, the crime of injury by carrying dangerous weapons of this case was not limited to mere injury cases, and it was a extreme violent crime against fluorists during the election campaign period that is politically sensitive to the political. This is a serious crime that disturbs the order of democracy and is a great obstacle to the establishment of a correct election culture, and there is a great need to prevent the recurrence of similar crimes.

In view of the Defendant’s attitude in the investigative agency and the court, the Defendant only stated that his mistake was against the Defendant’s own fault in the court. In the prosecution investigation, the Defendant destroyed a computer monitoring that is a public object, or revealed personal intent to the prosecution. In the court, he did not make any particular mistakes, and even in the court, he was detained for a long time through conspiracy with Kim○○ and the investigative agency, etc., and it is difficult to find a serious reflective color, such as sending back the arguments that the instant case was operated by the media and the prosecution.

In addition, with respect to the crime of the attempted crime of this case, the health team and the defendant committed the crime of the attempted crime of this case, and the defendant took money several times from the Kim ○, Kim △△△△△, as seen earlier, and even though they had been subject to criminal punishment over two times, they had been subject to criminal punishment for a long time, the victim mobilized to the heart center to find the address of the victim's husband and wife and demanded another money, and the above victims have not been able to lead a normal life with extreme fear and fear. Accordingly, the crime is very poor and the risk of recidivism is very high.

In full view of all the circumstances above, the crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (injury by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.) and the crime of violation of the Public Official Election Act in the judgment of the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for 8 years, and the crime of attempted attack in the judgment and the crime of damage to public goods in the judgment of the

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

Of the facts charged against the Defendant, the summary of the attempted murder, which is the primary charge, is as follows: “The Defendant, at around 20 May 20, 2006: 30 - 33, Changcheon-dong, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, Seocheon-gu, Seoul, the fourth nationwide local department store, and the fourth nationwide local election of Mana City City/Gu Seoul, Mana City City/Gu, the Seoul Seoul City Mayor candidate, divided the victim Park Jong-su, who is the highest member of the defendant's campaign speech meeting, who is the chief member of the defendant's Seoul Seoul City Mayor, divided the victim Park Jong-gu, who is the chief member of the defendant's office, and the defendant tried to enter the vehicle for election, and the victim will be able to die, and the victim will be knife of the victim's knife.

Recognizing the facts, “The victim attempted to kill the victim by dividing the victim’s timber by unsatising so far as it is difficult to see the victim’s satisf, which is a deadly weapon prepared in advance with the satisf and sound” (the total length of 14.5 cm), but the victim attempted to kill the victim by taking approximately four weeks of treatment on the face of the right side and the satch part, etc., and attempted to do so.”

2. Determination

A. As to this, the Defendant asserts that from the investigative agency to this court, he did not have any fact that he inflicted an injury on the victim, or had no intention to kill the victim.

B. The intent of murder in the crime of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murder or planned murder, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to one’s own act, and its recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant asserts that there was only the criminal intent of murder or assault but also the criminal intent of murder was committed, whether the defendant was guilty of murder at the time of the crime should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2231, Aug. 18, 200), such as the background leading up to the crime, motive for the crime, type of deadly weapon prepared, degree of the occurrence of the consequence of the crime, degree of the crime, existence of the consequence of the crime, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do2231, Aug. 18, 200).

C. If so, as to whether the Defendant had attempted to murder at the time, it was merely a assumptive judgment under the premise that the crime of this case was committed by a doctor who diagnosed and performed a surgery immediately after the crime of this case, that “if the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.”

라. 오히려, ① 이 사건 범행은 피고인이 장기간의 수형 생활에 대한 불만을 세간에 널리 알리기 위한 동기에서 비롯된 것으로서, 세간의 주목을 끌겠다는 의도만으로 박근혜 대표의 안면에 상처를 입히는 정도를 넘어 살해를 기도하는 데까지 이를 것으로는 보기 어려운 점, ② 이전에 피고인이 자신과 내연관계에 있던 김△△가 내연관계의 청산을 요구하며 냉대한다는 이유로 위 김△△의 안면을 면도칼로 긋거나, 청송교도소 수감 중 교도관 조○○가 자신을 차별한다는 이유로 유리조각으로 위 조○○의 안면을 찔렀던 것과 마찬가지로, 피고인은 이 사건 범행에 있어서도 박근혜의 안면을 가격 부위로 삼아 상해를 가한 것이지 목 부위를 겨냥한 것은 아니라고 보이는 점, ③ 피고인이 범행 도구로 준비한 문구용 커터 칼은, 목 부위를 베는 등의 특별한 용법으로 사용하지 않는 한 살인의 도구로서는 다소 미흡한 점, ④ 박근혜가 입은 상해는 오른쪽 귓 바퀴 앞면부터 턱선을 따라 오른쪽 뺨에 난 곡선 형태의 길이 11㎝, 깊이 1 내지 3㎝의 열상 ( 치료기간 약 4주 ) 으로서 결코 가볍다고 할 수는 없으나, 위 상해 자체만으로는 생명을 위협하는 정도에까지 이른다고 보기 어려운 점, ⑤ 한편, 피고인이 박근혜에게 위와 같이 칼을 휘둘러 상처를 입힌 후 더 이상의 상해를 시도한 바 없는 점 등 기록에 나타난 범행의 동기, 범행에 이르게 된 경위, 동종 수법의 범행 전력, 준비된 흉기의 종류 및 용법, 공격의 부위와 반복성 유무, 사망의 결과발생가능성 정도 등의 여러 사정을 종합하여 보면, 이 사건 범행 당시 피고인에게 피고인의 행위로 인하여 박근혜가 사망에 이를 수 있다는 점을 인식하고 이를 용인한다는 의사가 있었다고 보기 어려우며, 달리 피고인에게 살인의 고의가 있었다는 점을 인정할 증거가 없다 .

E. Therefore, inasmuch as the facts charged above constitute a case without proof of a crime, and thus, the acquittal should be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as long as the court found the defendant guilty of a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapons, etc., injured by a deadly weapon), the judgment of

Justices Kim Yoon-young

Judges Kim Jae-young

Judges Ocality