2018 Gohap632 homicide

2018. Written 31 (Joint Attachment Orders)

2019.3 (Consolidation) Probation Order

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

○○ (67 years old, South)

○○ (Institution of Prosecution) and Ma○○ (Trial)

Attorney Park Il-young (Korean National Assembly Line)

April 5, 2019

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

All requests for the instant attachment order and probation order are dismissed.

Criminal facts

The defendant and the victim ○○○ (Woo, 47 years old) are between China, which is a shipbuilding yard and a de facto marital couple from about five years ago.

From the end of October 2018, the Defendant purchased a SM3 car with a set of SM3 car equivalent to KRW 13 million in the market price at the time of the victim's death. On December 13, 2018, around December 13, 2018, the Defendant decided to deposit the above car as collateral and pay KRW 6 million in the bonds as KRW 7 million after the day. The above KRW 6 million was fully raised with the existing card and other debt repayment and gambling funds.

On December 13, 2018, at the latest in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the Defendant borrowed 6 million won to the victim’s residence, “Around December 13, 2018,” the Defendant had to pay 7 million won to the victim at the expense of KRW 7 million after a week. However, the Defendant refused the Defendant’s “Abrupted while the Defendant died,” and thus, the Defendant was able to raise the victim.

On December 14, 2018: around 08:20 on December 14, 2018: (a) the Defendant: (b) had the victim died of the victim due to his/her unknown consciousness in the toilet that occurred; (c) had the victim neglected his/her money; (d) had the victim died of his/her neglect of money; (d) had the victim died of his/her neglect of money; and (e) had the victim died of his/her neglect of money; and (e) had the victim died of his/her neglect of money; and (e) had the victim moved to his/her home to an

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 limited imprisonment

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than thirty years;

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

[Determination of Type] homicide 2 Form 2 (Ordinary homicide)

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

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

The Defendant infringed on a human life that cannot be replaced by that, resulting in a serious consequence. The instant crime was committed by murdering a victim who was a de facto marital couple for five years, and thus is highly likely to be subject to criticism. Although it is apparent that the bereaved family members of the victim who lost a minor family due to the instant crime have suffered a big wound that it is difficult for him/her to fully recover throughout his/her life, it is difficult to find out the circumstances that the Defendant sought a serious appearance and apology to his/her bereaved family members, and the bereaved family members of the victim are severe punishment against the Defendant. After committing murder, the Defendant asked him/her whether he/she can receive insurance money due to the death of the victim, and then he/she provided a mobile phone game at the funeral hall, but it did not appear that the victim lost his/her de facto marital spouse or that he/she divided the crime with a petition.

However, the defendant does not plan to kill the victim from the beginning, but rather seems to result in a somewhat contingent crime. The defendant confessions all of the crimes and has no record of punishment in the Republic of Korea.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. are revealed in the course of the case investigation and trial, and the sentencing guidelines of the Supreme Court sentencing committee shall be determined as the same as the order in consideration of the range of recommended sentences according to the

Determination on requests for attachment orders and requests for probation orders;

1. A summary of the cause of the claim;

A person subject to an attachment order and a person subject to a request for a probation order (hereinafter referred to as "defendant") murdered a de facto spouse who has been married for a long time as indicated in the facts constituting a crime. In light of the fact that the Defendant committed murder easily on the grounds that he/she was economically and simply neglected, and that he/she was interested in insurance money or passbook after killing the victim, etc., there is a high risk of violent recidivism, such as murder, if there is no serious reflectivity as a person committing a serious crime, etc. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to impose matters to be observed necessary for the attachment order of an electronic tracking device and for the prevention of recidivism and for the correction of character and character, or order probation.

2. Determination

A. “Dangerous to recommitting a homicide” under Articles 5(3) and 21-2 subparag. 3 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders means that the possibility of recommitting a crime is insufficient enough. It is highly probable that a person subject to an attachment order or a person subject to a probation order would injure legal peace by committing a homicide again in the future. The risk of recommitting a homicide is objectively determined by comprehensively assessing various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person subject to a request for an attachment order or a person subject to a request for a probation order, and the like, the conduct prior to the relevant crime, motive, means, means, circumstances after the crime, and circumstances after the crime. Such determination is based on the time of judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 2018Do7658, Sept. 13, 2018; 2018Do54, May 54, 55, 2018; 2018Do2593, Sept. 13, 2018).

B. According to the response to the defendant's prior investigation of the claim against the defendant, it is recognized that the circumstance that "it seems that the defendant's ability to control the recidivism risk seems to be sufficient, that there seems to be lack of dynamic and decentralization, that the ability and responsibility for his behavior seems to be insufficient, and that the social support system seems to be somewhat insufficient."

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is highly probable to injure the legal peace by committing murder again in the future, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

1) The Defendant does not seem to have violent inclinations against the Defendant, such as there was no history of punishment since entering the Republic of Korea in around 2001, and it appears that he had maintained a smooth marital relationship for five years in a de facto marital relationship with the victim.

2) The result of adult evaluation of recidivism risk level (KSAS - G) shows that the defendant's recidivism risk level is below 6 points in total (in the case of at least 12 points out of 30 points, 'high', 'in the case of at least 7~11 points, 'in the middle', 'in the case of at least 6 points', 'in the case of below 'low') and that the defendant's recidivism risk level is below 18 points in the middle (in the case of at least 25 points out of 40 points, 'high', 'in the case of 7-24 points, 'in the case of 'in the case of at least 6 points', 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of 'in the case of ').

4) Since the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime due to incombustibility with the victim, it is difficult to readily conclude that there exists a considerable probability for the Defendant to refrain from committing murder again against many and unspecified persons.

5) To a certain extent, the Defendant’s sentence of imprisonment for a long time is expected to prevent recidivism and to have the character and behavior corrected effect.

3. Conclusion

The request for the attachment order of this case and the request for the probation order of this case are without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Articles 9(4)1 and 21-8 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge shall have jurisdiction over the judges;

Judges Kim Sung-sung

Judges, Senior Jins