2013 Madicide 1080 Attempted Criminals

2013 high-ranking 23(combined), medical treatment and custody;

Claimant

A

Isscopics, Isscopics (Trial)

Attorney B

February 6, 2014

1. The defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year;

2. One (No. 1) shall be forfeited from the seized gladye;

3. The request for medical treatment and custody of this case is dismissed.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a mentally disabled person who shows the symptoms of the perception and accident disorder, such as the ordinary damage network, the hearing of instructions, and the fact-finding disorder, and thereby lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

1. Attempted murder of the victim C;

At around 09:00 on August 21, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was fluencing in front of the Suwon Station Square, and (b) tried to murder the victim’s fluencing the victim’s fluencing around 09:00; (c) had the victim’s fluencing the victim’s fluencing with his her fluencing, following the victim C (ma, 24 years old); (d) around 09:02 on the same day, the Defendant tried to kill the victim according to his flusing the victim; and (e) had the victim’s flusing the victim’s flucing with his fluencing hand; (e) had the victim’s fluencing the victim’s flus, but the fluing person, who discovered the flusing, failed to commit the act on the part of the Defendant.

2. Attempts to murder victims D;

On August 2, 2013, at around 13:41, the Defendant was suspected of killing C’s trees at the detention room of the Seoul Yongsan Police Station No. 5, as described in paragraph (1), and the Defendant considered that Mongolian nationality victim D (Nam, 44 years old) who was detained in the said room due to a special theft suspicion was cut away on his own, and attempted to kill the victim by breaking the breath of approximately 7-8 seconds located in the detention room. However, the police officer discovered it did not go through the wind of preventing the Defendant and attempted to commit a attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement by the prosecution concerning D;

1. Prosecutorial statements of E;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report, photographs taken by the victim, and investigation report (report on the occurrence of violence in a detention room);

1. Copies of seized articles, CCTVs, hair photographs, medical records, etc., and a mental appraisal report;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment concerning the facts constituting an offense are prescribed in Articles 254 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Mitigation of mental disorders;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with crimes of murdering and attempted murdering to Victims C with heavier penalty)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment on July 15 to July 15; and

2. Scope of recommended sentences based on the sentencing criteria: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and two months from February to 12 years.

[Determination of Death] Ordinary homicide

[Special Mitigation] Mitigation element: Minor injury (including injury without injury) and mental suffering (not in person's responsibility)

[Extent of Recommendation] One year or two months from two years to eight years (special mitigation area, murder attempted crime, and thus the lower limit of the recommended sentence range is 1/3, and the upper limit is 2/3, respectively)

[Scope of Final Recommendation] One year and two months from 12 years to 12 years [the total of 1/2 (4 years) of the upper limit of the sentence range as the two multiple crimes, the upper limit of the sentence range as the maximum of eight years];

3. Determination of sentence: One year of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case is an attack against Gap, with the intent of killing the person around the defendant without any special reason, and thus, the quality of the crime is not weak. However, in light of all of the sentencing conditions in this case including the fact that the defendant listens to the head of the exchange while having weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions, which led to the crime of this case, the crime of this case was attempted, and the damage is relatively minor, and the defendant was prevented from committing the crime, and there is no past record of criminal punishment for living in the Republic of Korea for several years, and all of the crimes are recognized and reflected, etc., a lower sentence than the sentencing guidelines shall be determined as per the order.

Judgment on Medical Treatment and Custody Requests

1. Summary of request;

A petitioner for a medical treatment and custody has committed a second-time crime against victims who do not have a common sense at least twice, and according to the opinions of a psychiatrist, it seems that the applicant for a medical treatment and custody shows symptoms such as cryp and injury accidents and impairment of reality judgment due to cerebral and cerebral surgery, etc., and in the future, it seems that the applicant for a medical treatment and custody has been placed in a state of need for medical treatment for an illegal period for treatment of mental disorders and prevention of recidivism in the future. ② In fact, the applicant for a medical treatment and custody committed a second similar crime in the same manner as the police officer reports in the detention room of the police station after the completion of the charge of attempted murder. ③ In relation to the motive for the crime, the applicant for a medical treatment and custody has a very emergency statement about the body of the applicant for a medical treatment and custody, and (1) the applicant for a medical treatment and custody again has a high risk of committing a second-ever similar crime in light of the fact that the applicant for a medical treatment and custody had a high risk of being performed in China around October 17, 200.

2. Determination

According to the evidence mentioned above and each fact-finding reply letter to the professional examiners of this court, the fact that the applicant for medical treatment and custody has committed the instant crime in a state that the applicant for medical treatment and custody lacks the ability to discern things and decision-making ability due to mental retardation and accident disorder such as damage network, exchange office, etc., and the fact that the applicant for medical treatment and custody is in the initial state of mental division disorder and requires mental treatment and observation for more than two years in the future.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, (i) although the applicant for medical treatment and custody was diagnosed as requiring medical treatment for more than two months, it cannot be readily concluded that compulsory isolation at the medical treatment and custody facility is necessary; (ii) even though the applicant for medical treatment and custody was conducted cerebral surgery in China around 2000, there was no mental disorder after the surgery, and this court’s specialized examination examiner also diagnosed that cerebral surgery and cerebral chinology are not the direct factor of mental disorder; (iii) there was no aggressive tendency between the applicant for medical treatment and custody; (iv) it is difficult to readily conclude that the applicant for medical treatment and custody was not subject to medical treatment and custody at the time of committing the instant crime; and (v) it is difficult to conclude that the applicant for medical treatment and custody was not subject to medical treatment and custody in a more aggressive manner than 1 month before reaching the instant crime; and (v) it appears that there is no need to keep the applicant for medical treatment and custody from being isolated from her society or physical disease.

Therefore, the claim for medical treatment and custody of this case is dismissed under the latter part of Article 12(1) of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act.

The presiding judge, the whole judge;

Judges Training Sub-Appellant

Judges Kim Gin-sus