2019Gohap26 homicide

2019,000,000,000

2019 Report1 (Consolidation) Probation Order

A person whose attachment order is requested, or a person whose probation order is requested;

Ansan○ (63 years old, south)

○○ (Criminal Prosecution) and leap○ (Public Trial)

Attorney Jeong-○ (Korean Central Election)

April 26, 2019

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for fifteen years.

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

To the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered for ten years.

Matters to be observed in the attached Form shall be imposed on the person requested to attach an attachment order.

The request for the probation order of this case is dismissed.

Criminal facts and facts constituting the cause of attachment order 1)

[Criminal Facts]

Defendant and the person subject to a request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 2) had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions by means of the victim’s 00 (the victim’s 50 years old) who is a mental disorder caused by alcohol, such as the damage network for the victim (the victim’s 50 years old) and the exchange of the victim’s external appearance.

On December 7, 2018: at around 50, the Defendant brought a knife knife (32cm in total length, 20cm in knife length 20cm) in the kitchen while disputing the Defendant’s knife and knife knife (20cm in total length), and murdered the victim by taking knife knife, knife, etc., accompanied by the heart and the knife knife knife knife., died.

【Fact of Grounds for Attachment Orders】

The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime, is likely to recommit the murder in light of the motive, method, circumstances after the commission of the crime, the situation after the commission of the crime, etc.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

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

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

Article 10(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 15982, Dec. 18, 2018); Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Issuing an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 5(3), 9(1)1, and 9-2(1)1, 2-2, 3, 4, and 5 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to hearing, etc.

2. Determination

In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court are presumed to have been a mental state caused by alcohol at the time of the crime against the defendant. Therefore, it is presumed that at the time of the crime, the victim was under the influence of the denial, and the victim was under the influence of the denial. Therefore, it is presumed that at the time of the crime, the victim was under the influence of the victim and the decision-making ability of the defendant. (2) The defendant was consulted at the first health clinic of the Hong-dong Hong-dong Hospital No. 195, Nov. 19, 2018, before the crime of this case. (3) The defendant was under the influence of the defendant on Nov. 19, 2018, who was under the influence of the Medical Treatment and Custody Hospital of the Ministry of Justice. (4) The doctor in charge was presumed to have been under the influence of the defendant, who had been under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime. (4) The defendant had been under the influence of 8 days before he was under the influence of alcohol of the defendant.

10. From November 2018 to undergo an inspection by the Defendant by acting as if the Defendant had a ear conversation and received an inspection from a hospital. In full view of the following: (a) the Defendant stated to the effect that it was “,” (the 19th page of the investigation record); (b) the Defendant, who was making almost the same daily drinking, began to drink from the beginning of November 2018; and (c) the Defendant was not in a state of drinking even at the time of the instant case (202 pages of the investigation record); (d) the Defendant was not in a state of drinking; and (b) the Defendant was deemed to have been in a state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the mental state induced by alcohol at the time of stopping the instant crime. In full view of the fact that the Defendant was in a state of having the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the suspension of alcohol consumption.

However, each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant concealed the equipment of the instant crime, such as hiding the knife used for the instant crime in the boiler room immediately after the instant crime, and was actually found at the relevant place (25 pages of the investigation record), ② on December 7, 2018, when the instant crime was arrested as a flagrant offender at around 10: “At the time of the arrest of the Defendant as a flagrant offender, the Defendant stated that the Defendant died of the crime (written arrest of the flagrant offender). (iii) While the investigative agency did not memory the specific contents of the instant crime, the Defendant did not appear to have been aware of the motive for the instant crime, or 2) on the circumstances favorable to him, such as the process of receiving mental treatment before the instant crime, and thus, the Defendant did not appear to have been able to view that the Defendant’s intellectual ability at the time of the psychological evaluation conducted by the National Hospital of the Medical Treatment and Custody Center did not change the level of action and behavior of mental health disorder.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months to fifteen years;

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

(a) homicide;

[Determination of Type] 2 homicide (General Murder)

【No Special Convicted Person】

【A general person who is a mentally ill-minded person】

[The scope of recommendations and recommendations] Basic Area, 10 years to 16 years of imprisonment

(b) Scope of recommended sentences modified by applicable sentences: 10 to 15 years of imprisonment (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, it shall be determined according to the statutory applicable sentences); and

3. Determination of sentence;

People's life is the highest legal interest and the most dignity value that our society protects.

Since the murder crime is a crime in which human life, which is a valuable value that cannot be altered under this world, and the result is very heavy and it is impossible to recover from damage, the act of infringing it shall not be absolutely acceptable, regardless of its reasons.

The defendant has continuously exercised verbal abuse and violence against the victim and his children for a considerable period of time during the marriage life with the victim more than 30 years, and this case is a case where the defendant, who had been suffering from the defendant's violence, had another victim who had been suffering from the defendant's violence in order to observe the family in the above domestic violence, was eventually killed with knife by knife.

In light of the fact that a private person of the victim was on the breast side, but a large number of scams presumed to be scams of the victim's both arms were found, the victim appears to have scam and scams of the defendant's attack at the time of the instant case, and the extreme fear and pain that the victim experienced are difficult to us to see. In addition, the victim's small father around the new wall, knife the victim's knife with the victim's knife with the victim's knife, and the victim's bereaved families were suffering from the knife mental pain that the victim could not speak.

In this case, the defendant not only caused a serious result of infringing the human life's most dignity value, but also destroyed the patriotic affairs and ethics between the family members to be hump and protect one another, and left the family members suffering from irrecoverable pain and suffering, and thus, the defendant's responsibility is very serious.

The defendant and his father have been present at this court as a witness for the crime of this case, and the victim and his family members have been continuously able to have been living for the defendant for a long time. In particular, the victim have sacrificed himself and her for self-defense. The defendant has been reported to the police by citing knife and killed knife. Nevertheless, the defendant did not reflect knife knife his knife, and knife knife knife knife knife that knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife of the defendant.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not appear to have a genuine reflective attitude, such as not memory or rationalizing his or her own act, and does not take any measures to recover damage, such as seeking a true letter to the victim and his or her bereaved family members, so the defendant needs to make a serious punishment corresponding to such acts within the extent permitted by the law due to a strict judgment of the law.

On the other hand, the facts themselves are acknowledged except for the defendant's assertion that he was in the state of loss at the time of the crime of this case, and there is no history of criminal punishment before the crime of this case, and the defendant's own homicide, and it seems that he should live a life in the society and his own homicide.

In addition, the imposition of punishment shall be exercised within the scope of guaranteeing the dignity and value of human beings declared by the Constitution. As a practical method, our criminal justice law only punishs acts in a state of responsibility, in principle, and accordingly declares the so-called ‘liability principle' to comply with the degree of responsibility. As to the defendant, who has the incomplete responsibility ability of mental disorder caused by alcohol at the time of committing the crime in this case, has to be sentenced to a sentence against the defendant in order to realize the responsibility principle, which is the foundation of the criminal justice, for the realization of the criminal justice, the sentence against the defendant cannot be considered as above.

In addition to the above circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case.

Determination as to the request for probation order

In addition to requesting an order to attach an electronic tracking device to a person subject to probation order, the prosecutor also requested the probation order after the completion of punishment under Article 21-2 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

However, a person subject to an order to attach a location tracking device, as the person subject to the order to attach an electronic device, is subject to execution of an order to attach an electronic device immediately before the completion of the sentence pursuant to Article 13(1) of the above Act, and is obligated to put the person under probation pursuant to Article 9(3) of the above Act during the period of attachment. As such, the instant request to put the person under probation order has no interest to file separate claims, and is dismissed pursuant to Articles 21-8 and 9(4)1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

For the purpose of judge mistake

Judges Lee Jae-soo

Judges Kim Jong-sung

1) The facts charged and the grounds for the attachment order were appropriately revised to the extent that it does not impede the Defendant’s exercise of right to defense.

2) While the Defendant stated that the specific details of the commission of the crime in the course of the investigation that was conducted after the crime was committed, the Defendant did not memory the crime.

I am to say that "the wind of the wife is the defendant, the defendant, the scambling, the scambling and the scambling male, and the scambling was not before 1 to 2 years.

Marriage in the year 87. He was married to him in the year 87, and he had had a man before his end, and he had no governance of 'Yina'.

It is necessary to say that there is a reason to say that the exchange of ‘I' died with us, and that I would also pay money on the side of the wife. It is necessary to say that I would like to say that I would like to give money on the side of the wife.

고 지방에 2 ~ 3일 갔다 오면 전화가 와서 ' 나 아줌마들 만나니까 찌개 끓여놨으니까 끓여 먹어 ' 라고 하고 나가버리고, 그리고 ,

The head of a house shall enter 12 p.m. a new wall, enter 2 p.m. 30 p.m., and the head of a house when the wife enters the house to work in brooms.

In addition, if shampoo and smell are found to be shampoo and smell, it was not erroneous, and it was stated specifically "(124 pages of the investigation record).