2013No178 Murder and concealment of a corpse

○○, Unauthorized, Unauthorized

Daejeon

Reference domicile Jinju City

Both parties

Edivers, laverg ore (Trial)

Attorney Song-soo

Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Gohap25 Decided March 19, 2013

June 12, 2013

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

The sentencing of the court below (nine years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The sentencing of the court below is too unjustifiable.

2. Determination

In addition, some of the motive for the crime of this case may be taken into consideration, including the fact that the defendant has been living in another woman from before his spouse (the mother of the defendant) to commit the crime of this case and that the victim has a considerable objection against the defendant. In addition, the conflict arising from the victim's confessions of the crime of this case, the victim's bereaved family members, who met the ordinary defendant strictly, is increasing, and the victim's family members wished to actively assist the defendant in the rehabilitation of the defendant after his release, and expressed his intention to actively assist the defendant in the rehabilitation, and on August 31, 2012, the defendant has expressed his intention to actively assist the defendant in the rehabilitation of the defendant, and the defendant has been sentenced to a suspended sentence for August 2 to commit the crime of traffic accident at the Daejeon District Court on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the defendant has no longer been sentenced to a fine for more than the above suspended sentence, and the defendant has no effect of a suspended sentence.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant had been able to receive job and economic support from the victim without any particular conflict with the victim for more than one year before the occurrence of the instant case, the relationship between the Defendant and the victim at the time of the instant case appears not to have been in a serious inslosion. The Defendant appears to have had experience in the past, and thus, cannot be said to justify a serious crime against the inslosion who killed his father. In addition, the Defendant was extremely cruel by the method of committing the crime, such as killing the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s slobry and slobry, and slopping the victim by taking advantage of the victim’s cell phone. After the crime, the Defendant did not seem to have followed it, and concealed the body of the Defendant by taking advantage of the victim’s cell phone, and by taking advantage of the victim’s cell phone, making the appearance of contact with the victim by actively concealing it by making a false appearance, thereby making it possible to commit an act of murder.

In addition, if the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and result of the crime, various sentencing conditions as shown in the records, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the range of recommended sentences by the Sentencing Committee are considered comprehensively, it is judged that the sentence of the court below is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit, and prosecutor's argument is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the decision of the original trial is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense recognized by this Court and the evidence related thereto is the same as that of the original judgment, and thus, they are invoked as they are.

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 250(2) and 161(1)(a) of the Criminal Act (the point of killing any lineal ascendant, the choice of limited imprisonment), Article 250(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of concealing any dead body);

The reason for sentencing of Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Aggravation of concurrent crimes (within the scope of adding up the long-term punishments of two crimes) of the Criminal Act) of the Criminal Act

[Scope of Punishment] Imprisonment from 7 years to 37 years

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

[Special Aggravation] The surviving victim, the cruel Criminal Code 1]

【Special Mitigation Elements】

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 12 years to 17 years (Aggravated Field)

【A person who is in general, abandoned】

[General Mitigation] Inciting the victim(general), serious reflection

[Determination of Sentence] The sentence shall be sentenced to the lowest sentence of the recommended range, comprehensively taking into account the grounds for sentencing as seen earlier.

The principal offender (Presiding Judge)

Freeboard

Freeboard Kim Dong-dong

1) Although the court below did not apply the "cruel method of committing a crime" as a special heavy factor, the defendant's head, chest, etc., of the victim due to the hives of the defendant, within several times.

There have been wide pulvers, blavers, and flavers from two floors, and there has been a flavers, flavers, etc. (Investigation Records 468 pages 468).

hereinafter) Since it is determined that the method of the crime is harsh, it is deemed that the trial is a special heavy factor.