208Gohap662 homicide, abandonment of a corpse, damage to a corpse

Maap00 (58 - 1, Labor

Housing Daegu and Seogu District

Daegu Dong-gu in its original domicile

Freeboard, Freeboard, Spanishing

Attorney Kim Jong-hun (Korean National Assembly Line)

7 persons

November 24, 2008

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

The 88-day detention days prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal facts

The Defendant married with Kim ○ on February 1991, but he could not raise son due to congenital dyslexism. At around September 1995, the Defendant adopted a child who was a baby of eight days after her birth and was living together with the child of eight days after her birth, and took care of hospital treatment due to her father and mental fission, hospital treatment due to the above leap Kim 00 and the above leap ten0 as well as her difficult economic conditions, etc.

1. homicide;

피고인은 2008. 7. 28. 14 : 00경 대구 달서구 - 고인의 주거지 작은방에서, 이전에 위 윤○○를 자주 돌봐주던 피고인의 처남댁 이이 ○로부터 ' 평소 윤○○가 공부를 소홀히 하고, 컴퓨터 게임에만 빠져 있으며, 김00에게도 마구 대들더라 ' 라는 말을 들은 것이 생각나 윤○○를 훈계하기 위하여 그곳으로가 책상에 앉아 있는 피해자에게 " 니가 아무리 그래도 본 정신도 아닌 엄마를 패고 그럴 수 있나, 니가 크면 아빠한테도 대들고 패겠네, 밤낮 없이 컴퓨터만 하나, 공부 좀 해라 " 고 야단을 치자, 피해자가 " 아빠가 사준 컴퓨터인데 무슨 소리 하노 " 라고 말대꾸를 하는 것에 격분하여 순간적으로 그를 살해하기로 마음먹고, 양손으로 피해자의 목을 잡고 일으켜 벽으로 밀어 붙인 후, 약 2 ~ 3분간 복을 힘껏 눌러 그로 하여금 그 자리에서 질식으로 사망하게 하여 피해자를 살해하였다 .

2. Abandonment and destruction of a corpse;

At the same time, at the same place, the defendant died, and at the same time, and at the same time, covered the victim's bridge by combining the victim's bridge with Cheong tape located in the forepart, at around 17:00 on the same day, and collected the victim's body in the front half of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance at the entrance of the entrance at the entrance at the entrance of the entrance at the entrance at the entrance, and tried to extinguish the body to conceal the crime, and at the same day: 23:00 on the same day, the defendant carried the body, the body, and the remaining body used in the house to cross-section with the body of the defendant at the front 125 cc, the body, and the remaining body used in the house. At around 24:00 on the same day, the defendant continued to set the body into an intersection by attaching it to the body of the body, and then throw it out to the open air by attaching it to the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Witness 00. Each legal statement of the witness;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol on the suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant 1. A, Kim 00, each prosecutor's statement of each prosecutor's office 1. Each investigation report on the defendant's suspect interrogation protocol 1. A, each prosecutor's protocol 1. Each prosecutor's statement of each prosecutor's office : confirmation of the advertisement site discovered in the vicinity of the prosecutor's office, the counter-examination of the Daegu-lane, the blue-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-type, the search, the request for identification of the office of education in the field, the investigation request for identification of the damaged person's blood type, the investigation plan for the discovery of the injured person's damage and the investigation plan, the attachment of a le00 photograph, and the subsequent investigation report on the contents of the cell phone conversations, the examination of the medical records of the defendant and Kim Ma-k-k-k's hospital, the confirmation of whether the defendant's and Kim 00's medical records attached to the intersection, the victim's final 00 le or the suspect's statement.

1. Report on criminal history, change history case (the second record), investigation report on actual condition, request for autopsy, report on the results of autopsy, body autopsy, report on results of field identification, gene type, etc., on-site verification, on-site verification, and on-site verification request such as body body (the request for cooperation on the detection of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body of the body.

1. A report on search and a seizure list;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of murder and the choice of limited imprisonment) and Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (the points of abandonment of and damage to the dead body)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Crimes of homicide with the Gross Mutandis Punishment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the Defense Counsel's argument

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant’s defense counsel asserts that even on the day of the instant case, the victim did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to extreme interest, etc., the victim committed the instant crime in a state that he did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to extreme interest, etc.

2. Determination

In light of the background and method of the instant crime, the Defendant’s behavior before and after the commission of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the Defendant’s attitude after the commission of the crime. In addition, considering the following factors, it is difficult to view that at the time of the instant crime, the Defendant lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise, the defense counsel’s assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is that the crime of this case is committed by the defendant on the ground that the defendant neglected to study the victim's name and neglected the body to conceal the crime, and then destroyed it by burning it. Since human life is the most respected value that should be protected by the State or society, the State or society as well as the act of infringing upon human life cannot be used for any reason. The defendant murdered the children under the age of 12 who are without any crime on the ground that he takes care of her, and did not take the body to conceal the crime. The defendant was investigated by the investigative agency, and the defendant first committed the crime of this case, such as murdering the children under the age of 12, who were not a crime on the ground that she takes care of her, and did not take the body in order to conceal the crime, it seems that it would be difficult for the defendant to properly think that she committed the crime of this case, such as murdering the victim, and making the victim do not have any relation with her own, and that he did not have any responsibility for the crime of this case.

However, the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime in a contingent manner in the course of guiding the victim who was suffering from extreme stress due to the depression with his wife, etc., the Defendant seems to have committed the instant crime; the Defendant has no record of criminal punishment except for suspended sentence due to habitual larceny, etc., and the Defendant has been sentenced once to a fine due to the crime of bodily injury; and the Defendant seems to have supported the wife and the victim so far and have been under extreme living. In addition, considering all the circumstances that conditions for sentencing, such as the Defendant’s age, character and behavior, character and environment, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment shall be determined as the same as the order.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion

Dogna Dogna Dog Dogna Dog

○ All seven jurors guilty

Opinions on the sentencing of terms

○ 15 years of imprisonment with prison labor

○ 12 years of imprisonment for a maximum term

Judges in order of the presiding judge

Judges Lee Jae-eng

Judge Choi Jong-young