2015No2428 homicide

A

Defendant and Prosecutor

Sponsing (prosecutions) and stuffing (public trial)

Attorneys Y (Korean National Assembly)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Gohap227 Decided August 28, 2015

November 12, 2015

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

" February 24, 2014" among the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below shall be corrected to February 24, 2015.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant:

(1) misunderstanding of facts

The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of murdering the victim, although there was a fact that the defendant had met the victim at the time and place of the decision of the court below, and the third party did not murder the victim.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the court below (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor,

The sentence of the court below is too unjustifiable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in detail under the title "a judgment on the defendant's assertion", which is identical to the grounds of appeal in this case, and the court below rejected the above argument. The above judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts as alleged by the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Determination on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing by the defendant and prosecutor

The Defendant’s crime of this case is an act of cutting away the life with dignity, which makes it impossible to recover the damage in any way, and the Defendant repeats an assertion that is consistent even after objective and apparent evidence has been revealed, and does not reflect it by denying the crime. Moreover, the Defendant committed the crime of this case without being aware of it even during the period of repeated offense.

However, it is difficult for the defendant to know the motive of murder because he denies all the crime (the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to predict the motive of the crime, such as the charge). However, the fact that the defendant was receiving mental treatment from around February 201 due to the symptoms of dependence on water exemption, fear disorder, etc. (the mental sentiment was made against the defendant in the original trial, and according to the result of mental appraisal, the defendant seems to have shown symptoms such as depression, apprehension, etc. at the time of the crime in this case, but it seems that the mental disorder at the time of the crime in this case was not the state of mental disorder). In addition, considering the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, means and consequence of the crime in this case, the circumstance after the crime, etc., the defendant and the prosecutor's argument in both of the defendant and the prosecutor are deemed to be too heavy or too unreasonable, and there is no reason to believe that the sentence of the court is too unreasonable.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are without merit, all appeals filed by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and "2014, February 24, 2015" in the criminal facts stated in the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of "2014, February 24, 2015", it is so decided as per Disposition by the ex officio

Summary Judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Cho Yong-chul

Judges Park fixed-time