Defendant 1

Defendant 2 (Defendant in the judgment of the Supreme Court and the respondent for attachment order)

Lee Young-young (Court of Prosecution) and a literary ceremony (Court of Public Trial)

Attorney Yoon Don-do (Law Firm Hann-do et al. for all the defendants)

Defendant 1 and 2 shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years.

The information about the Defendants shall be disclosed and notified through the information and communications network for ten years.

An electronic tracking device shall be attached to one person requested to attach an electronic tracking device for ten years.

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

【Criminal Facts: 2012Gohap857】

On February 4, 2004, the defendant and the respondent for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") were sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Seoul Central District Court on April 24, 2005, and completed the execution of the sentence at the first prison of the North Korean Branch on April 24, 2005, and on April 14, 2006, the sentence was finalized on April 22, 2006 after being sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for the same crime at the Seoul Northern District Court on April 14, 2006.

From the day of release from prison to prison, the Defendant committed the following crimes in collusion with Defendant 2, who was aware of the Defendant’s intention in the ancient city of Chuncheon, and in collusion with Defendant 2, who committed the crime by entering the other’s house at night.

1. Attempted special robbery;

At around 03:10 on May 20, 205, the Defendant: (a) went into the house of Nonindicted Party 2 (Inn, 22 years of age) located under the underground room of the building located under the Dong-dong building located in the city of Gyeonggi-si; and (b) went into the house through the entrance door. Defendant 2: (c) at the entrance of the entrance door, the Defendant reported the network at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance door; (d) carried the victim locked away from the face of the victim; and (e) carried the victim’s seat at the house, hump, who was a deadly weapon at the seat of the head of the house, carried the victim’s humf, and then carried the victim’s humf, “Is off,” and (e) carried the victim’s humf, “Is off,” and (e) took the victim’s humf, who tried to escape from the house, and (e) took the victim’s humf, thereby saving the victim’s money and valuables.

2. Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (special robbery, rape, etc.);

Around 03:00 on August 19, 2005, the Defendant intruded into the house with the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the victim, 51 years of age) located on the first floor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yero 2-dong building, together with Defendant 2. The Defendant: (a) sealed the victim, who was in the military room, and was in the military room, frighted into the face; (b) took a lethal weapon, which was a deadly weapon in the military room; and (c) took the face towards the face; (d) however, the Defendant refused by the victim and frighted the victim’s face at one time with his body fright at the victim’s resistance; and (d) obstructed the victim’s panty by inserting the Defendant’s sexual flag into the part of the victim; and (e) obstructed the victim’s finger by melting the Defendant’s hand from the side, etc.; and (e) 2 did not protect the victim’s property by taking the victim away from the Defendant’s body.

【Facts constituting the Grounds for Attachment Order: 2012Ja35 (Joint)】

On December 28, 1992, the Defendant was sentenced to five years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes in the Seoul District Court’s East Branch Branch, etc., and completed the execution of the sentence in an Ansan Prison around July 10, 1997, and was committed again as described in paragraph (2) of the above criminal facts at the time when ten years have not passed since the completion of the sentence, and was at the risk of recidivism.

Defendant 2 (hereinafter “Defendant”) was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for special larceny in the Seoul Southern District Court on January 26, 2007 and the judgment became final and conclusive on the same day.

On April 24, 2005, Defendant 1, who was known to the Defendant, was released from prisons around April 24, 2005, and was committing the following crimes in collusion with Defendant 1, together with Defendant 1, to gambling in Switzerland-siwon, etc., and to enter another’s house at night to commit the crime.

1. Attempted special robbery;

At around 03:10 on May 20, 205, the Defendant: (a) went into the house of the victim Nonindicted Party 2 (Influence, 22 years of age) located underground in the Dong-dong building located under the Dong-dong building located under the Dong-dong building; (b) and (c) contacted the victim into the house through the entrance of the house. The Defendant reported the network at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, and Defendant 1 took away the victim who was diving from the room, flaging the victim’s face, and flaging the victim’s face, she took a deadly weapon at the house, and she took the victim’s seat at the house, and “Is off the front flag,” but she took the victim’s door, “Is off the front flag,” and she took the victim’s door, “Is the victim’s door,” and she took the victim’s door, and she took the victim’s door back to the next port, and took the victim’s door back.”

2. Violation of the Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims thereof (special robbery, rape, etc.);

At around 03:00 on August 19, 2005, the Defendant: (a) when she was at the house of Nonindicted Party 1 (the 51 years of age), the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (the 51-year old), located on the 1st floor of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Yero 2-dong building; (b) when breaking the body of the victim into the house through the open window, Defendant 1, who was faced with a deadly weapon, who was in the house of the victim in the room, embling the face of the victim, and embling the face of the victim into the face of the victim; (c) when the victim refused the body of the victim; and (d) when putting the victim out the panty of the victim; and (d) embling the victim’s own sexual flag into the part of the victim’s window, raping the victim into the part of the victim; and (d) the Defendant 1, who did not keep the victim back by scking his hand, etc.

1. Defendants’ legal statement

1. Defendant 1’s legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 1, and a protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant 2 (the second and third examination);

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant 1;

1. Statement of prosecutorial statement concerning Defendant 1;

1. Statement of the police statement of Nonindicted Party 1

1. A report on damage from Nonindicted 2’s preparation

1. The current status of a person who conforms to the results of investigation reports (the hearing of the victim Nonindicted Party 1 telephone statement), each investigation report (the hearing of the victim Nonindicted Party 2 telephone statement), investigation reports (the identity of the suspect), investigation reports (the inquiry of the details of the health care benefit in the body of the suspect and the health insurance), investigation reports (the hearing of the statement of the staff and the telephone statement of the staff), and DNA comparison reports;

1. Correspondence with the results of genetic search and response to requests for appraisal;

1. The point of judgment: Each criminal history record and each investigation report (a copy of the judgment shall be attached);

1. The risk of recidivism and the recidivism of a sexual crime committed in the judgment: (a) the following circumstances recognized by the evidence mentioned above and the response to the request before the request, namely, ① Defendant 1, as seen in the facts constituting the attachment order, committed the crime of this case again despite having previously been sentenced to the punishment for committing rape in the opportunity of larceny; and (b) Defendant 2, as a result of evaluating Defendant 2 as “the evaluation tool of the risk of recidivism (K-STRAS)”, shows that the risk of recidivism of the same crime recognized by the records and arguments in the instant case, including: (c) the same crime history recognized by the pleading, the content, motive and background of the crime, the character and conduct of the Defendant, the perception and character of the Defendant, the environment, and the attitude and attitude of the sex, etc., are recognized in light of the following circumstances.

Defendant 1

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

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes ( April 15, 2010), Article 5 (2) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) and Article 5 (10) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection, etc.”) and Articles 342, 334 (2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act [Special Robbery]

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 of the Criminal Act, the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article]

1. Order to disclose and notify;

Articles 37(1)1 and (3), and 41(1)1 and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

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

Article 5(1)1 and Article 9-2(1)1 and 4 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

Defendant 2

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

Article 4 of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes ( April 15, 2010), Article 5 (2) of the former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes”) and Article 5 (10) of the Addenda to the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (amended by Act No. 10258, Apr. 15, 2010; hereinafter “former Act on the Protection, etc.”) and Articles 342, 334 (2) and (1), and 333 of the Criminal Act [Special Robbery]

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act, the proviso to Article 42 of the former Criminal Act [Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims Thereof as stated in paragraph (2) of the same Article]

1. Order to disclose and notify;

Articles 37(1)1 and (3), and 41(1)1 and (3) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant 2 was not involved in the crime in the judgment.

2. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the records and arguments of this case, Defendant 2’s participation in the crime as indicated in the judgment can be acknowledged.

A. The credibility of Defendant 1’s statement, which Defendant 2 designated as the accomplice of the instant crime, is high since the background or process of the statement is natural and specific.

1) Defendant 1 received suspicion that he/she committed a crime listed in paragraph (2) of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment (hereinafter “Seongdong case”), and arrested on October 28, 2012 under the charge that he/she committed a crime listed in paragraph (1) of the criminal facts as indicated in the judgment. The Defendant stated that he/she committed a erodong case with the person first during the police interrogation process conducted on October 29, 2012, the following day of the arrest, and that “Nonindicted 5” was committed with the person first during the police interrogation process conducted on October 29, 2012, but the Defendant stated that he/she reversed his/her statement upon the investigation by the police officer in charge of the investigation, and that he/she committed a erodong case and Council-government case with Defendant 2. Accordingly, as to Defendant 1, a detention warrant was issued by this court.

2) However, Defendant 1 again changed his statement to the prosecutor’s office during the first interrogation process conducted on November 1, 2012, which was conducted on November 1, 2012, and Defendant 1 stated that the case was committed with Defendant 2. However, Defendant 1 stated that the case was not memory of committing an intentional government-oriented case.

3) During the second interrogation conducted on November 6, 2012, Defendant 1 partially changed the attitude of Defendant 1 to pursue a crime on the ground of DNA detected at the site and recognized Defendant 2 as having been involved in both cases, when Defendant 2 was aware that he/she committed a case at the Government-si.

4) On November 9, 201, Defendant 1 made a concrete statement on the method of crime, etc. on the premise that Defendant 2 participated in both cases, even during the third prosecutor’s interrogation process, which was last proceeded on November 9, 201.

B. On the other hand, the part of Defendant 2’s statement to the effect that Defendant 2 did not participate in the instant crime among Defendant 1’s statements is less reliable.

1) As seen earlier, Defendant 1 reversed the passive statement, and in the prosecutor’s investigation conducted on November 15, 201 with Defendant 2’s qualification as witness, Defendant 2 took part in the erodingdong case, and subsequently changed the immediately preceding attitude by stating that Defendant 2 did not participate in the erodingdong case, and Defendant 2 did not take part in the two cases in this court, and then changed his attitude by asserting that Defendant 2 did not take part in the two cases.

2) Defendant 1 initially assessed Defendant 2 as an accomplice. Defendant 2 claimed that, in the year 2008, Defendant 2 loaned KRW 4 million to Defendant 2’s land to Defendant 2, but instead, Defendant 2 provided a false statement as an accomplice in the caric book in the first police investigation stage where he did not repay the money.

3) However, such Defendant 1’s assertion is extremely difficult to believe. In short, even if Defendant 1’s statement was made, two persons were friendly with only the money that they were aware of for a period from the enemy to several hundreds of time, and their relationship was good even at the time when the instant crime was committed. Moreover, since there are several times of criminal punishment, Defendant 1 was well aware of the difficulty in prison life than anyone given that there are several times of criminal convictions. In particular, Defendant 1 had a variety of criminal convictions, it should be deemed that Defendant 2 was well aware that there was a high possibility for Defendant 2 to be sentenced to heavier punishment upon conviction. The crimes committed jointly by several persons should be deemed to have been well aware of the likelihood of being sentenced to heavier punishment. Meanwhile, at the time of Defendant 1’s statement of the category of co-offenders, the investigative agency did not fully recognize the fact of Defendant 2’s participation related to the instant crime, and thus, the investigative agency did not have to induce the category of the co-offenders to be unlawful.

In such a situation, it is difficult to view that Defendant 1 merely borrowed a few years prior to his/her lending of 4 million won, and it is difficult to see that Defendant 2 is a false person to be an accomplice.

4) Meanwhile, Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that he/she committed the instant crime with “Nonindicted 5” at present. However, according to the following various circumstances, Defendant 1’s assertion: (a) Nonindicted 5 was a relative who was known before 30 years ago and operated a cartoon room in Chuncheon City; (b) there is no circumstantial evidence to deem this person as a human being in existence; and (c) Defendant 1 asserts that he/she was aware of the specific personal information, family relations, addresses, and contact details of Nonindicted 5; and (d) Nonindicted 6, 7, and 8, who appears to be the most close to the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, were considered as having no person who is the “Nonindicted 5”, and there is no evidence to prove that the human being was a virtual figure created by Defendant 1; and (e) there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to prove this.

C. Defendant 2 made a statement consistent with part of the facts charged, such as Defendant 1’s taking advantage of one’s own vehicle and making a statement that there is a space between Defendant 1 and the government at the time of his own. However, Defendant 2 did not make a detailed statement for those who enjoy gambling, such as the specific place where gambling was conducted at the time, or the form of gambling, such as gambling, until now.

D. In addition, the following circumstances support the fact that Defendant 2 participated in two cases.

1) Defendant 1 suffered the tear of the left floor on the top of the victim's display in the course of the crime of the Yedong-dong crime. Defendant 1 received the upper felling operation at the Gangnam Medical Foundation Hospital located in Gangnam-dong medical corporation located in the same day after escape. Defendant 1 recognized all the above facts, Defendant 1 stated that he was only at the time of the Yedong-dong case, and that there was no felling with Defendant 2, if he feld in the sule-dong around July 2005, while he was felbling with Defendant 2 in the sule-dong, he stated that there was no felling. However, Defendant 2 made a statement that Defendant 1 and feld with Defendant 1 were to return to the gale-dong medical corporation located in the Chuncheon-dong Medical Center in the Republic of Korea on the same day, and that he returned to it. Defendant 1 stated that he returned to it.

2) Defendant 1 stated that the Defendant and Defendant 2 stated that he/she fin the same cigarette as “Clodry” or “Clodry”, and that he/she also fin the same cigarette. However, Defendant 2 also stated that he/she took advantage of the Maddrid amp. However, Defendant 1’s NA was detected at the beginning of the above cigarette but Defendant 1’s Madrid ampt was detected.

3) Defendant 2, around June 17, 2005, around 05:20 on June 17, 2005, around the day when the two crimes occurred, caused the traffic accident while driving Defendant 1 on his own knife and driving his knife on his knife on his knife, and around 2005, Defendant 2 acknowledged that Defendant 1 used his own knife with Defendant 1 to play on several occasions.

4) Defendant 1 stated in this Court that Defendant 1 made a statement that he made the statement that “I am scar, in my opinion, ....” (the victim also made the statement) and that there were co-offenders in various circumstances, such as the victim’s statement. Defendant 1’s assertion, it is difficult to deem that Defendant 1’s sole criminal act or the victim’s sexually committed acts to prevent resistance, and such remarks were made to prevent resistance.

1. Scope of applicable sentences by law: Ten years to twenty-five years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Basic Crimes] Violation of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection of Victims Thereof (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.)

[Determination of Punishment] General Criteria for Sexual Offense>>

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: In the case of special robbery (Type 3)

[Determination of the Recommendation Area] Aggravation (five years of imprisonment to 13 years)

3. Determination of sentence: Ten years of imprisonment; and

The crime of this case was committed after the Defendants recruited in advance, and attempted to commit robbery by threatening the victimized female with a deadly weapon, and by threatening the victimized female with a deadly weapon. The act itself is extremely bad in nature. The victims appear to have received a large physical and mental shock and suffering up to now, but the Defendants failed to request the victims' consent. In addition, in the case of Defendant 1, the Defendants committed the crime of this case as they did not appear even after the completion of the execution of sentence due to the previous crime. In addition, even though the investigative agency should present clear evidence such as DNA, Defendant 1 led to a confession of the crime, and Defendant 2 did not violate their own criminal acts by continuously denying their own criminal acts in the investigative agency and this court. In particular, Defendants 2 did not commit the crime of this case on the grounds that they did not have been punished for the reason that they did not commit the crime of this case.

However, there are no factors favorable to the Defendants, such as the fact that the Defendants did not proceed to the degree of direct harm to the victims with deadly weapons; that, in the case of Defendant 1, Defendant 1 appears to be somewhat shaking efforts to live a correct life in the course of a long-term prison life; and that there is room to view that the degree of participation in the crime is relatively weak in the case of Defendant 2, etc. In light of these various factors of sentencing, the Defendants are punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 10 years.

Where the part (Article 2) of the former Act on the Punishment of Sexual Crimes and Protection, etc. of Victims thereof (Special Robbery, Rape, etc.) is finalized among the convictions against the Defendants, the Defendants are subject to registration of personal information pursuant to Article 32(1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes, and they are obligated to submit personal information to the competent authority pursuant to Article 33 of the same Act.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-young (Presiding Judge)

1) After the commission of the instant crime, the Criminal Act was amended, and the imprisonment term was extended to a maximum of 30 years (by a maximum of 50 years (by a maximum of 50 years). However, the proviso of Article 42 of the former Criminal Act (by a maximum of 25 years) that was enforced at the time of the commission of the