A. Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Murder, etc.)

(b) Causing suicide of an induced person;

(c) Inducement of minors;

(d) Porting a corpse;

2020 No. 14 (Joint Attachment Orders)

1.(a)(c) A;

2.(c). (d) B

Both parties

Cho Jae-chul (Request for indictment and attachment order) and yellow water (public trial)

Attorney Shin Jin-affiliated (National Assembly for Defendant A)

Attorney Lee Jin-hun (the national election for the defendant B)

Suwon District Court Decision 2019Gohap520, 2019 Jeonwon20 decided February 14, 2020

July 16, 2020

All appeals filed by the Defendant and the person subject to the attachment order and the prosecutor’s Defendant and the person subject to the attachment order are dismissed.

1. Scope of the appellate trial trial

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the charge of inducing minors was judged not guilty on the grounds of the judgment of the court below, and the prosecutor was exempted from the object of public defense among the parties due to the lack of appeal by the prosecutor. Accordingly, this part is subject to the conclusion of the judgment of the court below and does not be judged again.

2. Judgment on the part A of the defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant").

A. Determination of the accused case

1) Summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., considered unfair)

With regard to the punishment sentenced by the court below (30 years of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2) Determination

In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the lower court in the appellate trial, and the sentencing of the lower court is not beyond the scope of reasonable discretion, it is reasonable to respect such a case (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015);

First of all, there is no significant change in sentencing conditions compared to the original judgment against the defendant when it comes to the trial.

While the Defendant, along with his accomplice C, was controlling and managing so-called running a dormitory by way of lodging and lodging resolution and violence events, etc., the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the victim, who escaped from spam, had made a statement unfavorable to the Defendant at an investigative agency; (b) induced the victim to the place of crime by using Co-Defendant B, etc. in the lower court’s judgment; (c) led the victim to the place of crime by using Co-Defendant B, etc.; and (d) promptly murdered the victim in an unbrupted state by taking advantage of the motive and circumstance leading up to the crime, method and method of the crime; (b) method of the crime; (c) method and method of the crime; and (d) method and method of concealing the body of the victim, and (e) method and circumstances leading the Defendant to the crime. As long as the Defendant led to such crime, the crime of this case, together with his accomplice, is very bad, in light of the nature and circumstances of the crime.

On the other hand, at the time of committing the crime, the Defendant was 21 years of age and was 23 years of age and was punished for more than a fine, and there was no record from the investigative agency to this court, and the Defendant’s family members were able to repent of the crime. The Defendant’s family members wanted to have the Defendant’s wife against the Defendant and agreed to partly change the victim’s father AB, one of the bereaved family members, and the Defendant’s parents expressed their intent to fulfill their best to return to society. Moreover, the Defendant’s aggressive tendency was raised as a self-defense against school violence that was committed by a middle school student, and the protection, rearing, and education necessary to correct such aggressive tendency were somewhat insufficient. Such circumstances should be considered as normal circumstances favorable to the Defendant.

In full view of the aforementioned conditions of sentencing as well as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be excessively light or unreasonable because it goes beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

B. Determination on the claim for attachment order

When a defendant files an appeal against a prosecuted case, it shall be deemed that an appeal has been filed against a case claiming an attachment order pursuant to Article 9 (8) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. However, even if the grounds for appeal regarding the case claiming an attachment order are not stated in the petition of appeal or the statement of grounds of appeal and ex officio, the part concerning the case claiming an attachment order of the original judgment cannot be reversed.

3. Judgment on Defendant B

A. Determination of the accused case

1) Summary of the grounds for appeal (e.g., considered unfair)

With respect to the punishment (25 years of imprisonment) sentenced by the court below, the defendant asserts that the prosecutor is too unhued and unfair.

2) Determination

There is no significant change in sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment even against the defendant when it comes to the trial.

In light of the motive and background leading up to committing the crime, the method and method of committing the crime, the method and method of committing the crime, and the method and circumstance where the body was concealed after the murdering, the Defendant heard that the victim would have been killed by Co-Defendant A, and tried to take part in murdering the victim who does not have any particular confiscing relationship, using Co-Defendant P et al. of the lower court’s judgment to attract the victim to the place of committing the crime, and murdering the victim. The Defendant, together with his accomplice, committed the crime of this case, committed the crime of this case with his accomplice, by taking advantage of the fact that the victim and the victim did not have any consciousness, was killed by the victim, and the victim was released from the crime of this case by taking advantage of the fact that the victim and the victim did not have any consciousness, and the Defendant took part in the crime of this case, which was disadvantageous to the Defendant, after being released from the crime of this case.

On the other hand, the defendant shared the act of execution in accordance with the instructions of Co-Defendant A, which is deemed to be somewhat less than that of his participation, recognition of the whole crime, and attitude of breaking the mistake, the victim's father AB, who is one of the bereaved families, has made an agreement with the father of the injured party on the side of the damage caused by the balma and has reached an agreement, and the one-year imprisonment is in the crime of violation of the Electronic Financial Transactions Act and the latter concurrent crimes under the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and should take into account the case and equity as favorable to the defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (b) the circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence imposed by the lower court does not seem to be excessively light or unreasonable because it goes beyond reasonable discretion.

B. Determination on the claim for attachment order

1) Summary of the grounds for appeal

It is unreasonable that the court below ordered the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device although the defendant does not pose a risk of recommitting murder.

2) Determination

The lower court determined that there was a risk of recommitting murdering by the Defendant, taking into account the following factors: (a) the Defendant’s proposal was accepted by Co-Defendant A; (b) the Defendant’s life attitude revealed in the motive and method of the crime; (c) the Defendant’s life style revealed in the motive and method of the crime; (d) the Defendant’s life without any particular criminal liability after the crime; (b) repeated escape and flight history from the juvenile flag; (c) the Defendant’s tendency indicated in the petition pre-trial investigation report; and (d) the degree of risk of recidivism identified in the evaluation tool of recidivism risk (KSAS-G); and (e) the method of screening of mentally ill persons.

In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the judgment of the court below that the defendant is likely to recommit the murder crime is justified. This argument is not acceptable.

4. Conclusion

All appeals by the Defendants and the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed on the ground that they are without merit.

Judges Noh Superintendent of the Supreme Court

Judges in the appellate course

Judges Cho Jae-il