2015 Gohap285 homicide

2015. Written order to attach 45 (Joints)

2015 initially 1197 Application for a compensation order

Persons whose attachment order is requested;

(i) ① (78 years old, South) Company,

Residential Pyeongtaek-si

Reference domicile Pyeongtaek-si

For the purpose of this section (prosecutions), Yang Dong-dong (Public Trial)

Law Firm member, Attorney Lee Jong-ho

○○ Kim [ Address: Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government]

November 10, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for 12 years.

Seized evidence No. 1 shall be confiscated.

The request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed.

An application for compensation by an applicant for compensation shall be dismissed.

Criminal History Office

피고인 겸 피부착명령청구자 ( 이하 ' 피고인 ' 이라고 한다 ) 는 동성애자로 2015 . 2 . 5 . 경 피해자 김♤♤ ( 33세 ) 을 만나 연인관계로 지내오다 , 2015 . 3 . 중순경 헤어진 후 , 다시 피 해자와 연인관계로 발전하고 싶어 했으나 , 피해자가 피고인에게 계속 거짓말을 하는 문제로 다퉈왔다 .

On May 10, 2015, the Defendant, while driving a motor vehicle on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, sent the victim to an underground parking lot in the victim’s residence in Osan City, and sent the victim a meal at the neighboring restaurant, and the victim again driven the motor vehicle and returned to the above underground parking lot.

On May 10, 2015, the defendant was parked in the above underground parking lot around 19:52, and the victim posted a letter on the Internet same-sex site to lower the level of himself (one "day", male who talks with a male for the purpose of money, and demanded the defendant to pay 100 million won for mental compensation, in a way that the defendant is suffering from money, and the defendant is fluencing so as to kill the victim. The defendant was fluencing in the above underground parking lot (12cc in length on a knife) by gathering the excessive part of the victim's right chest part of the victim's right knife in the direction that the victim knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif knife k: k on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Dismissal of an application for compensation order;

Article 32(1)1 and (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

section 25(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Small and Medium Enterprises does not constitute an offense subject to a compensation order.

In order to seek the agreed amount of damages between the defendant and the applicant for compensation

of this section)

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

Although the defendant recognized the fact that knife the victim, there was no intention to murder the victim at the time.

2. Determination

A. Determination criteria

The purpose of murder in the crime of murder is to be determined with the intention of murdering or planned murder, as well as with uncertain intention, so-called dolusent intent is recognized. In a case where a deceased person did not have the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, and only he did not have the intent of murder or assault, and the defendant had the intent of murder at the time of committing the crime, whether or not the defendant had the intention of murder at the time of committing the crime cannot be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, the motive leading up to the crime, the existence and motive of the crime, the type and method of the prepared deadly weapon, the part and repetition of the attack, the possibility of the occurrence of death, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do6425, Feb. 8, 2002, etc.).

B. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., (i) the Defendant: (a) before her franchising with the victim; (b) the Defendant asked to die on April 2015; and (c) around May 9, 2015, the Defendant posted an article on the Internet same-sex website to the effect that the victim is present for money; and (d) the Defendant was able to find out his knife with the victim’s knife at his knife and knife at the time of his knife and knife with the victim; and (b) the Defendant was able to look at the victim’s knife and knife the victim’s knife at the time of his knife and knife with the victim’s knife and knife with the victim’s knife at the time of his knife and knife.

The above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

From 5 years to 30 years of imprisonment;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

[Determination of Type] 2 homicide (General Mosing homicide)

[Special Convicted Offenders] Reduction element: dolusorous murder

[Determination of the recommended Area] Reduction Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Seven years to twelve years

3. Determination of sentence;

The crime of this case was committed by the Defendant with knife and knife at the end of the dispute. The crime of this case resulted in a result that the life of a human being with dignity that has the human dignity that can not be altered from what is caused by this result, and the Defendant has reached a knife of the victim's breast part of the victim's chest sufficiently enough to be siffed on the road, which is a deadly weapon sufficient to siffe his body life. In light of the motive and background of the crime of this case, the crime of this case was committed in bad character; the crime of this case was committed in light of the victim's motive and background, criminal implements, damaged parts and degree of damage, etc.; the victim's pain and mental shock and pain that are difficult to fully recover from the victim's bereaved family members; etc., the crime of this case cannot be severely punished against the Defendant.

However, the circumstances favorable to the defendant, such as the fact that the defendant reported 112 and 119 immediately after the crime and sent the victim relief and back, and the fact that the victim caused the death of the victim due to his well-being, are recognized and reflected, shall be considered as favorable to the defendant, and the punishment shall be determined as ordered in light of various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case, such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, and depression after the crime.

Judgment on the Request for Attachment Orders

1. The abstract of a ground for requesting the attachment order;

The defendant is a person who has committed murder as stated in the judgment and is in danger of recommitting murder in light of the circumstances before and after the crime of murder.

2. Determination

Article 5(3) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders refers to a lack of possibility of recommitting a crime, and there is a considerable probability that the person who requested the attachment order may injure the legal peace by committing a homicide again in the future. The risk of recommitting a crime of murder shall be determined based on the time of judgment, comprehensively taking into account various circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person who requested the attachment order, the conduct prior to the commission of the crime, the motive, means, the means, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and the situation after the commission of the crime (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do289, 2012Do2289, 2012Do55, 2012Do51, May 10, 2012).

According to each of the above evidence and the statement of summary claim investigation, the following circumstances revealed to the defendant, i.e., the defendant has no criminal records of the same kind or more suspended execution due to the violation of the Military Service Act and the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act on June 15, 2000; ii) the evaluation of recidivism risk against the defendant at the level of 20 points, but the evaluation of the above evaluation is at the level of 20 points, it is difficult to readily conclude that the risk of recidivism is high; iii) the selection of the mentally ill person (PC -R) evaluation is not conducted; 3) the defendant denies the intention of murder but the death of the victim due to his new act is recognized, and it is contrary to this, there is no probability to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone alone is hard to view that the defendant again commits murder in the future and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed in accordance with Article 9 (4) 1 of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the ground that it is not reasonable.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yang Sung-soo

Judges Doese defect

Justices Kim Jae-su