Whether it is necessary to recognize the facts recorded in the family register in addition to the awareness of the mother in the crime of surviving the mother.

The perception of the existence of the surviving person is sufficient to have been known to him/her of the fact that he/she is a mother, and it cannot be said that he/she knows the fact that he/she is registered as a mother on the family register.

Article 250 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Seongbuk-gu Seoul District Court Decision 74Gohap26 delivered on April 1, 198

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

One hundred and thirty days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The excessive one (No. 1) seized shall be confiscated.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel is that the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, and thus cannot be treated as murder since the defendant did not intend to kill the victim, and the fact that the victim was a legal mother was known only after the crime was committed, so it cannot be punished as a crime of murder, and even though it was impossible to find the defendant guilty, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Second, it is unfair that the sentence imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor's grounds of appeal are too unfortunate that the above sentence is too unfortunate.

Therefore, the first point of appeal by the defendant, etc. is examined in light of the records of this case, and the evidence duly adopted by the court below is examined in light of the records. Thus, since the defendant's facts constituting a crime of this case can be sufficiently recognized (the recognition of existence is sufficient to have been known of the fact, and it cannot be viewed as a requirement that he knows the facts registered as a mother on the family register) other than the process of fact-finding by the court below, there is no error of law as pointed out in the arguments, and thus, the grounds for appeal as to the

The second ground for appeal is examined in light of the following circumstances: the defendant's age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime in this case, relationship with the victim, circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence against the defendant is too unreasonable. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is reasonable in this regard. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not reversed without determining the grounds for appeal on the unfair sentencing of the prosecutor.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members shall be decided again after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding case of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

However, the so-called judgment of the defendant falls under Article 250 (2) of the Criminal Act. Since the defendant selected a life imprisonment sentence during the prescribed period of punishment and voluntarily surrenders himself, the defendant was legally mitigated pursuant to Articles 52 (1) and 55 (1) 2 of the Criminal Act, and again, the defendant is the first offender and there are several reasons for considering the circumstances described in the above reasons for reversal, such as the motive for the crime of this case, etc., the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to five years within the period of punishment under Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act, one excessive number of days of detention days prior to the sentence of the court below by applying Article 57 of the Criminal Act, which is included 130 days in the above punishment, falls under the ownership of a person other than the defendant, and thus, it shall be confiscated pursuant to Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act.

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

Judges Limited Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)