2017Gohap438 A. Helping suicide

(b) A person who commits suicide (a preliminary crime of aiding and abetting suicide);

1. (a) A (750821 - 6), and non-permanent

Gyeonggi-si District:

2.(b) B (5105 - 2) , free of office

Housing Eargue group

Lee Jong-woo (Lawsuits) (Court of Justice), Kim Jong-Ma (Court of Justice)

Article 100 (National Election for Defendant A)

Attorney Lee O-O (for Defendant B)

June 8, 2018

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year, and imprisonment for five years, respectively.

Criminal history;

Defendant B was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a crime of fraud at the Chuncheon District Court on June 1, 2016, and was released on March 30, 2017 during the execution of the sentence, and the parole period expired on May 29, 2017.

Criminal facts

Defendant A, a former pastor C(82 years of age) and his denied victim D(77 years of age), is a woman of 3 South and North Korea. Defendant B, who has been engaged in religious activities from April 2012 to Escopian, and was believed to be Defendant B as a "person with no name", and the victim was able to live in the Republic of Korea and the United States around October 2014. The victims were 17 years of age, and the victims were able to think that he had been living in the Republic of Korea for a long time from 0 years of age to 10 days of age.

From November 10, 2017 to November 15:01, 2017, Defendant B caused the victims who thought as above in the above Farith T 000 to commit suicide by means of “a response with a thickness.”

On the other hand, around November 10, 2017, Defendant A told the victims to commit suicide, and took a warning from Defendant B to the effect that the victims attempted to commit suicide.

Accordingly, from November 15, 2017 to 01: 01: 18:0 to 07, the Defendants boarded the Lone Star-gun and return to the same group, such as Lone Star-gun. However, the Defendants selected the North Korean river from 00 p.m., which is in the West-si of Chuncheon City, as the suicide place of the victims, and returned to Korea at home.

Then, at around November 11, 2017: 19:23, the Defendants: (a) moved the victim C from the said F apartment parking lot to the outside of the house; (b) parked the vehicle into the lower part of the said 00 bridge at around 19:46; (c) set off the victim C in front of the nearby river; and (d) left there. At around that time, the victim C attempted to commit suicide by leaving the water in an irregular manner.

Then, around November 11, 2017: 21:43, the Defendants moved the victim D from the above F apartment parking lot to the outside of the house and depart from the place. At around 22:05, at around 00, the Defendants parked the vehicle into the lower end of the above 00 bridge, and let the victim D get off the vehicle. After having the victim D get off the vehicle, the Defendants got out of the two arms of the victim D and come to the direction of the river. The victim D committed suicide at that time in the water in an irregular manner.

Accordingly, Defendant B prevented the victims from committing suicide, and Defendant A assisted the victims to commit suicide.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the Defendants (as of the seventh trial date)

1. Each legal statement of J and K

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the first trial record

1. Each police officer against Defendant B and each suspect interrogation protocol of the prosecution

1. Each police statement made against Defendant A;

1. The first police interrogation protocol against Defendant A

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against Defendant A;

1. Each police officer, prosecutor's protocol against J, K and G, and prosecutor's protocol;

1. The police statement concerning L;

1. Attachment of the past e-mail recording, investigation report (to make a monetary report among the relevant witnesses), M Statements, and examination of the witness;

Recording Notes, N Statements, N Examination Record

1. Documents related to dispositions, such as a report on investigation (the confirmation of the relationship of previous convictions in second place), non-prosecutions and indictments;

1. Investigation report (the result of executing the 0th warrant, the monetary report in charge), investigation report (the internal spirit of the suspect);

Visiting interview report)

1. Investigation report (report on a copy of records on the B fraud case), statement of reference C, suspect B;

Written application for the examination of the chair (in the capacity of the complainant) and the application for witness C

1. Details of extracting A mobile phone messages;

1. A report of investigation (a copy of suspect B’s set attached) and a copy of suspect B’s set;

1. A certificate of the status of the officer in charge, and a certificate of affiliation;

1. Notification of the results of integrated psychological analysis;

1. Records of prior CCTV photographs and residential CCTV;

1. The written autopsy appraisal of the deceased C and the investigation report (the document attached to the written postmortem body of the victim D) ;

1. Previous convictions: Criminal history records and other statements; judgments of the first instance court; judgments of the appellate court; and current status of personal confinement;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Defendants: Article 252(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Defendant B: Article 35 of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the crime of aiding and abetting Victims C and the crime of aiding and abetting Victims

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

1. Defendant B

A. Summary of the argument

Defendant B did not have caused the victims to commit suicide. The victims want to go to a "Yacheon State". The victims called "influence to prices" and only returned to the North Korean lecture as they were.

B. Determination

1) Legal principles

In the general provisions of the Criminal Act, a teacher’s act in the crime of suicide refers to a teacher’s act and its meaning in the general provisions of the Criminal Act. A teacher’s act in general provisions refers to having a principal offender pass a resolution on the crime. If it is possible to pass a resolution on the crime, there is no restriction on the means to do so, and there is no need to do so explicitly and directly. It is necessary to prove that the principal offender constitutes a crime. In addition, it is necessary to prove that the principal offender constitutes a crime. However, if the principal denies the fact, it is possible to prove it by means of proving an indirect fact that has a considerable relation in light of the nature of the object. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect fact that has considerable relevance, it should be reasonably determined by the law that reasonably determines the connection status of the fact by using the close observation or analysis force based on normal empirical rule (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1252, Feb. 25, 200; 200Do165, Feb. 25, 2000).

2) Specific determination

In light of the following facts and circumstances, the court can find the fact that Defendant B caused the victims to commit suicide, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court. Defendant B and his defense counsel’s assertion is not acceptable.

A) Relationship between Defendant B and victims

(1) At the time of the first arrival of Defendant B and the victims, the victim C was a pastor of the Phurch (Phurch) in the U.S. New Base, and the victim D was a wife of the victim C as the denial of the victim C. Defendant B received a wood case from the Khurter (joint reform) on April 24, 2003, and was active as a pastor even before the victim was heard.

(2) On December 2010, the victims first met Defendant B with the introduction of his son in the United States. At the time, Defendant B itself called “a son who transferred his son’s speech,” and the victim C was “a son with red strings,” and the victim C, who had changed his blue with his blue with red strings, was believed to be “Defendant B’s without the name of the brue.” The victim C, a child of the victim D and the victims, was believed to be “Defendant B”. After the victim C was only the Defendant B, the victim and the victim believed to be “a brue with his speech and violence,” instead of exercising their verbal abuse and violence.

(3) On April 2012, the injured party C organized the “Pect” and, from around April 2012, established Ehurch “Ehch” with Defendant B, and performed religious activities. At the time, Defendant B had the injured party expressed to the end that he would go to the son if he did not look at the injured party according to his remarks, and began to interfere with the minor parts, such as the arrangement of house units, remote areas, coloring, and coloring of clothes. Defendant B was the victim who believed to be the victim “B,” and that it was one of his speech, and the said minor matters began to comply with Defendant B’s horse.

(4) During that period, Defendant B said that, “Igre, including the victims,” Iged to the “Igre,” and “Ignd to the victims of the Egrhy,” around October 2014, the war occurred in Korea and the United States, and the victims thought that Igreed to be one of the horses of Defendant B, and immediately disposed of the property, including the real estate, owned in the United States, and transferred Igreed to their children in the United States around October 2014. Defendant B demanded the victims to pay the above disposal amount, and the victims were given no objection.

(5) After the relocation of Defendant B into Korea, the victims continued to believe Defendant B as Defendant B’s person with no name, who believed that the war was a military war and was a brut for the virtue of the war. However, the victims continued to lead to a religious life in the family, even though Defendant B went away from the majority of the members of Defendant B, because the war was not actually occurred at the time of the foregoing time.

(6) Defendant B, as much as possible, read TV to the victim on the ground that he ought to live a life corresponding to Nar’s speech. He does not go through the Internet. He talked with the neighboring people or talked with the victims. They should make a more serious interference with the victims, and make the victims feel purely as he knows, and made the victims view to the Central Central Central Republic of Korea or read the books. The victims believe that he is a life corresponding to Nar’s speech.

(7) Furthermore, Defendant B had Defendant A, his wife, the victim’s prevention, called “the victims”, “Isn’s money,” and Defendant C did not go to the end of the end of “Isn’t come to the governance of the victim,” and the victims did not seem to have any response to the outbreak or refusal of the victims.

(8) Around January 2015, Defendant B made a son’s statement to the victim C and followed his mission. Around 2015, Defendant B made a son’s statement to China, and the victim C believed son’s statement to be one of son and stayed in China for several months according to Defendant B. At the time, Defendant B took care of the victim C’s use of the toilet for the reason that the victim C was made for a long time, and made C use of the toilet for the victim’s use of the toilet, and the victim C expressed that “A is a party to the son or the continuing attempt to continue in the future,” instead of making it difficult for the victim C to do so.

(9) On October 2015, when Defendant B was investigated into a crime of fraud, the victim C submitted a written statement and written application to the effect that Defendant B appeared in the investigation agency on his gender and that Defendant B was a prior candidate such as “Sgel,” and Defendant B was present in the investigation agency on his own, and that Defendant B retired KRW 70,000,000 from Q with the investigation agency on his own, and that Defendant B was retired from Q (in accordance with the direction of Defendant B, most of the said money was disbursed for daily expenses).

(10) In light of the above facts and circumstances, even if Defendant B demanded the victims to speak that he is one of the victims and thus it is extremely difficult to accept, the victims seem to have been able to believe that he was one of the victims to make a speech, and without any refusal. Although Defendant B demanded that the victims be aware that he was one of the victims of his speech, it was not sufficient that the victims did not have one of the victims' speech, and rather, by doing so, Defendant B's thought that he did not have one of the victims' own opinion, and rather, it seems that he did not come up with the victims' own opinion. Accordingly, the relationship between Defendant B and the victims should be viewed as one of the victims' speech, but it is difficult to view that he had a direct relation between Defendant B and the victims' testimony and that he did not comply with the above victim's statement, in light of the circumstances where Defendant B and the victim's statement were made. However, it is difficult to say that he had a legitimate relation between Defendant B and the victims' statement.

B) The circumstances in which the victims committed suicide.

(1) From October 2017, the victims want to go to the Defendant from the point of view that “the Defendants want to go to a astronomical state.” At the same time, “the victims would have suffered considerable mental pain as the victims who were parents, by going to leave for a long time and committing larceny.” Second, the victims of the victims C were living in the past. The victims were 80 years old, who were the believers before and after the age of 80, left the United States, which is the main basis for their lives, and settled in a family without any different occupation. These circumstances are: (a) the victims were living in the religious life without a different occupation.

As a combined action, the victims seem to have made the above remarks.

(2) However, the victims seem to have not been definitely determined to commit suicide at the time. From October 2017, the victims were only engaged in suicide several times, and there was no attempt to commit suicide by themselves until they commit suicide with the help of the Defendant. “The victims wish to go to YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTSYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTSYYYYYYYYYY ACTSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTSYYYYY ACTSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACTSYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY ACT.” The victims had no more interest in the victim’ emotional health.

(3) The victims committed suicide immediately after the victim's suicide. In light of the above results, it is inevitable to view that the victims' suicide was caused only by other additional reasons. Defendant B consistently stated in the investigative agency and this court that they would have continued to kill the victims, "I would like to know that I would like to die," and Defendant B would like to look back to 3 times from the 6th day after the victim's suicide. The victims would have come to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to die, and that I would like to look back to the 6th day after the victim's suicide, and that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would have come to know that I would like to know that I would like to know that I would like to know.

(4) Defendant B made a statement to the effect that the victims were able to die in the water in an investigative agency and this court, while considering the statement, Defendant B appears to have made the above statements in a state that the victims knew of the ability to commit suicide and accepted it. Thus, Defendant B’s willful negligence on Defendant B’s act of aiding and abetting suicide is recognized.

2. Defendant A

A. Summary of the argument

피고인 A은 피해자들이 자살하려한다는 사실을 전혀 인식하지 못하였다 . 피해자들 이나 피고인 B으로부터 피해자들이 자살하려한다는 말을 들은 사실도 없다 . 이전에 피 해자들로부터 ' 천국에 가고 싶다 ' 는 말을 들은 사실은 있으나 , 이는 종교인들이 기도를 하는 중에 의례적으로 하는 말에 불과하였을 뿐 , 결코 자살을 하겠다는 말은 아니었다 . 피고인 A은 ' 무명의 선지자 ' 인 피고인 B의 지시에 따라 하나님의 말씀에 대한 순종의 의미로 피해자들을 강변에 놓고 온 것일 뿐이다 . 사전답사도 B이 바람을 쐬러 가거나 기도를 하자고 하여 운전하여 나간 것일 뿐이다 .

B. Determination

According to the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the defendant A, who was aware that the victims were about to commit suicide, is aware of the fact that the victims were born to the North Korean River by burning the victims on the Lone Star vehicle and aiding and abetting the victims to commit suicide. The defendant A and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

1) On November 10, 2017, Defendant A consistently stated at an investigative agency that “I want to go to a astronomical State. I want to go to a astronomical State. I want to go to a astronomical State. I want to go to a astronomical State” around November 11, 2017.

2) In order for the victims to commit suicide, Defendant A, in the room of the victims immediately before the end of the suicide, called 'Wronve.' in the country of Mana, the victims and 'Wronve.', and the victims and sporadsty.

3) The North Korean River, where Defendant A deprived of the victims, was in a rare place, and it was extremely difficult at the time to see that weather was late (i.e., at the time of arrival of the North Korean River in this Court, the J made a statement that Defendant A and the victims were on board the vehicle immediately after the arrival of the North Korean River. The victims were old and did not have a cell phone device to return to the F apartment. Defendant A did not find the victims after the victims went to the North Korean River.

4) Defendant A and the victims committed suicide with Defendant B on November 12, 2017, the day following the suicide of the victims, and on November 13, 2017, the following day. Defendant A left all the victims’ articles on the new wall.

5) A police officer found “F apartment at an investigative agency” and changed the phone call to Defendant A to the criminal officer in charge, and made a statement that Defendant A did not have any response during the phone call.

6) Defendant A stated that, at the time of the first investigation by the police as a witness, it is clear that the victim C committed suicide, so the autopsy does not want to be conducted at all.

7) At the time of the first police investigation, Defendant A entered that “Influences of the parent of the instant parent would complete the pain and pain situation of his chest in this land. They planned and requested that they die of peacefully. This is because they have been living for a long time, they came to have died of peace.”

Reasons for sentencing

1. Defendant B

(a) The range of applicable sentences: Imprisonment with prison labor for one year to 30 years;

(b) Exclusion of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the crimes of suicide teachers.

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant B, while living together for a long time, had the victims believe that he was "the person who was in the name of his own," had the victims commit suicide. Defendant B, from the point where the victims were to commit suicide, had the victims directly read the place where the victims would commit suicide, and had the victims directly take the place where the victims could commit suicide. Defendant B, who was in the name of "the person who was in the name of his own," was in a significant proportion of the victims' lives, was in control, and the relationship between the victims and the Defendant A, who was their children, was so far as the victims and their children could not live as normal family members. At the time of the victims' suicide, Defendant A, who was in the name of the victims, was brought about at the time of the victims' suicide, and eventually, the victims' family distress by causing the death of their parents. As long as the situation was in favor of the Defendant B, the situation was that the victims led to the failure of their family members.

On the other hand, Defendant B has no record of punishment for the same crime. These circumstances are favorable to Defendant B.

In addition, Defendant B’s B’s Na, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and means of the crime, circumstances after the crime was committed, and all of the sentencing factors revealed in the trial and the circumstances after the crime was committed, shall be determined as ordered by the order.

2. Defendant A

(a) The range of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for one year to 15 years; and

(b) Exclusion from application of the sentencing criteria: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the crime of aiding and abetting suicide.

(c) Determination of sentence;

Defendant A, who is his parent, was born to the victim by a Lone Star motor vehicle so that the victims who were his parents could commit suicide, thereby facilitating the suicide of the victims. Such circumstances are disadvantageous to Defendant A.

On the other hand, Defendant A merely driven Lone Star motor vehicle according to Defendant B’s instructions, and Defendant B took the words as “Defendant B’s without title,” and therefore, it seems difficult to readily refuse the instructions of Defendant B. Defendant A did not have any power to be subject to criminal punishment, and is against the part that the victims died. These circumstances are favorable to Defendant A.

In addition, the defendant A’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, motive and means of crime, and other sentencing factors revealed in the process of the public trial of this case shall be determined as ordered by taking into comprehensive account the following factors: (a) the punishment shall be imposed upon the defendant A; and (b) the punishment shall be determined as ordered by the order.

Judges Lee Young-young

Judges Kang Jong-chul

Judges Seogjin-won

1) ① A significant portion of the facts in the facts charged is merely an indirect fact that does not directly relate to the Defendants’ suicide aiding and abetting.

It shall not be stated in the facts constituting an offense.

② In the facts charged, Defendant B thought that there was a red flag for the victims, and there was a red view for the victims, i.e., red., the victims.

Considering that it is no longer possible to put the victims into prison, the victims had been killed, and the victims had instigated suicide.

The prosecutor appears to be the primary basis for recognizing the above facts charged, but damages to the set.

The specific description about the Parties is not only twice more than September 2017, but rather, Defendant B’s persons involved in the fraud case.

Many of the facts that the person died are found. Ultimately, the above strip alone recognizes the enemy, etc. as the motive for the suicide of Defendant B.

It is difficult and there is no other obvious evidence to acknowledge it.

③ “The fact that the victims were forced to go to a astronomical State” due to the problems of G, etc. is the Defendants and the relevant parties.

The facts charged are not stated in this part of the facts charged, but they are alleged by the Defendants.

Since it is consistent with this, it does not seem to infringe on the defendants' right of defense, and the fundamental history of the facts charged.

It seems within the scope of not impairing the identity of the actual relationship.

2) In the facts charged, Defendant B may bring the victims into the territory of the Republic of Korea the so-called "if Defendant B entered the territory of the Republic of Korea, the so-called "the so-called "the so-called suicide," etc.

H. E-mail, e-mail, e-mail, e-mail, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.s.

'The fact that Defendant B would have been able to move to the victims at the moment of the present moment, the same shall apply to the death of the victims.’ H and I

state his opinion, but this is merely a side of the prosecution of H and I, which did not directly experience the instant case, and otherwise recognition of this part of the facts charged.

there is no evidence to prove that there is no such evidence.