Requirements for a sentence of death penalty to be permitted.

Articles 41 and 51 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 2003Do924 Decided June 13, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1566) Supreme Court Decision 2004Do3538 Decided September 3, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4178 Decided August 25, 2005

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Jeon Byung-soo

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005No383 Decided December 23, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

1. As to the assertion of mental disorder

In light of the records, it cannot be seen that the defendant did not have the ability to discern alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, or did not have the ability to make a decision, and thus, the defendant's mental and physical disorder argument is rejected.

2. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing

Considering the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, the sentence of death penalty is an extremely exceptional punishment that can be presented by the dual judicial system in the country of sentence. In light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only where there are objective circumstances to recognize it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment. Therefore, in sentencing death penalty, the sentence of death penalty should be clearly deliberated on all the following matters, including the offender’s age, occupation and career, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, family relation, victim’s relation, motive for the crime, preparation degree, means and method of the crime, cruel and bad degree, importance of the result, the number and appraisal of victims, the depth and attitude of the crime after the crime, the degree of reflectness and responsibility, the possibility of recidivism, and the possibility of recidivism, etc., and shall be clearly decided after thoroughly examining the above special circumstances.

Considering the content and degree of damage, motive and means of the instant crime, circumstances after the commission of the crime, relationship between the Defendant and the victims, Defendant’s age and environment, personality and conduct, etc. as indicated in the record, in light of the above sentencing criteria, in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment, the sentence of the lower court that maintained the first instance court which sentenced the death penalty against the Defendant is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s grounds for appeal on unreasonable sentencing are rejected.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)