logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2017노890
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(보복살인등)등
Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s punishment (20 years of imprisonment) is unfair or unfair as it is so unfased so far as it is so unfair or unreasonable (a prosecutor), and is rather unfair (defendants). 2. In the event that no change exists in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court’s judgment and the sentencing of the first instance does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect the sentencing of the first instance court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant killed the victim cruel by taking away the victim’s face and appearance on several occasions, and by taking away on the victim’s face and neck.

The murder crime is a serious crime to deprive the human life, the most valuable value of which cannot be recovered by any means. In particular, in this case, the defendant sent a text message creating anxiety to the victim who requires the defendant to liquidate an inappropriate relationship with him/her.

The responsibility is greater in that the victim threatened the victim with intimidation and assaulted the victim, and the victim was found to have a defect in the police, thereby killing the victim for the purpose of retaliation.

In addition, even though the bereaved family members of one victim was found to be harsh in that they were unable to recover throughout their lives due to the victim's suspicion, no measures have been taken to avoid the pain of the bereaved family members, and the bereaved family members of the victim want to be punished against the defendant in the first instance. In light of the seriousness of the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, etc., a serious punishment corresponding to the defendant's liability is needed.

On the other hand, it seems that the Defendant was an initial offender who had no previous conviction, and that the victim, who had a relationship, demanded a separate judgment, and reported himself to the police, was found to have committed the crime of murder under the influence of alcohol without any breathing, and then committed each of the crimes of this case at latest.

arrow