2014 Gohap529 homicide

A person shall be appointed.

Kim Jong-chul (Lawsuits) and Kim Il-il (Trial)

Attorney Lee Young-hoon

June 25, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty-five years.

one electric wire seized (Evidence 1), one blue tape (Evidence 2), one blue tape (Evidence 2), one blue tape (Evidence 3)

Note 12, 12 (No. 5), 5 (No. 6), 1 (No. 9), 1 (No. 9), 1, and albs

15 (No. 10) Each confiscation of 15 (No. 10)

Criminal facts

After retirement from office around December 2009, the Defendant, without any particular occupation, was living with the Defendant’s spouse, from around 201 to around 47 years old, made up KRW 270 million loans from a new bank as security to around 17, 201, and made up 30 million in total from around 1, 2013 to around 17, 200, 300,000 from the Defendant’s parents to 50,000,000 won as a result of a failure to make an investment in stocks, and made it possible to kill the victim A and the Defendant’s wife B (the 17 years old, 17 years old, 17 years old, 4 years old, 15 meters old, 20 meters old, 15 meters old, 20, and 15 years old, 207 old, 14 meters old, 20.

1. homicide against a victim A;

On December 5, 2014: at around 00, the Defendant: (a) 02: (b) attached a shot shot in the Defendant’s house with a shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot shot ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske, and (b) confirmed that the movement of the victim has ceased, and (c) caused the victim A to die ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske ske.

2. homicide against the victim B;

On December 5, 2014, at around 02: 50, the Defendant entered the victim B's room from the Defendant's office to the victim's room, and took part in the victim B's hand to prevent the victim B from leaving the room to the hearing tape, and caused the victim B to stroke the victim B's stroke by getting the victim B stroke away from the stroke to the stroke.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. Seizure records;

1. A copy of each body of corpse;

1. A written appraisal of each panel of inspection;

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. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (A with heavy Criminal Capacity)

Aggravation of concurrent crimes resulting from murder)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The defendant proposed to kill the victims before the crime of this case, and the victims agreed to do so and killed the victims. The defendant entrusted or consented to the murder of the victims.

The victims were killed.

B. The Defendant committed the instant crime under the condition of mental or physical disability or mental disability.

2. Determination

A. Whether it constitutes murder upon commission or with consent

It is necessary to say that ‘request or consent' in the crime of murder by commission or consent as stipulated in Article 252(1) of the Criminal Code is clearly and seriously stated, and that it is true that it is consistent with the truth, so it does not constitute temporary powder or shock.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by the court: (i) The defendant met the victim A at the night prior to the crime at this court; (ii) the victim A, who was not wanting to live in the brue, “the victim A,” or “the victim B, who was unable to live in the brue, without having to do so,” and “the victim B, was unable to do so without having to do so.” This is not only the defendant’s unilateral assertion, but also the victim’s statement appears to have given a temporary testimony, and it is difficult to view that the victim consented to murder seriously; and (iii) the defendant, at the time of this case, was not only the victim’s murder but also the victim’s response to murder, but also the victim’s response to murder in the brue and the victim’s response to murder, but also the victim’s response to murder in the brue and the victim’s response to murder.

not be deemed to constitute a case.

B. Whether the defendant was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, i.e., the Defendant planned to commit the instant crime; ② the Defendant, even after committing the instant crime, did so by organizing a house after the instant crime, and informing him of his home address and the present door password, and ③ according to the result of the mental diagnosis of the Defendant, the medical treatment and custody office is a normal criminal state where the Defendant’s mental state is not subject to the diagnosis of a unique mental disorder; and it is presumed that the Defendant had a mental state similar to the present one at the time of committing the instant crime. In view of the above, it does not appear that the Defendant had a weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

C. Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The range of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than 45 years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria (each homicide);

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 2 (General Mos homicide) Aggravated Area of homicide ( Imprisonment for not less than 15 years, and not less than a weapon)

[Special Aggravations] Reference homicide

[The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses] Imprisonment for not less than 15 years, life imprisonment

3. Determination of sentence: 25 years of imprisonment; and

Due to stock investment failure, the Defendant committed an extreme crime to commit suicide with his wife, who was in an economic difficulty due to his failure, etc., and to kill his wife and his dependent.

Considering the fact that the act of the defendant committed the crime of this case in advance, such as the act of the defendant's husband, who has to live together with his own will, and who has to take responsibility as the parent who shall raise his responsibilities and children healthy and caused the death of the victim and taking the life of the most valuable value of the human being, which cannot be used for any reason, is an anti-social crime, anti-social crime, the defendant planned the crime of this case by preparing tools such as water exemption and boom, and the parents of the victim A wanting to take severe punishment against the defendant, it is necessary to punish the defendant with severe penalty corresponding to the crime liability.

However, it appears that the defendant, acting as a substitute for the crime of this case, has committed a crime of this case in life, committed a crime of deceiving and living together, and that the defendant seems to have committed the crime of this case under a serious mental confusion with the extreme mind of suicide due to economic difficulties, and that the defendant is likely to lead to the crime of this case under a serious mental confusion with the extreme mind of suicide. The defendant is likely to have to live all the remaining life of the victims due to his own hand, and there seems to be any criminal punishment history against the defendant.

The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of the favorable circumstances in which the defendant's age, character, conduct and environment, the impulse, means and result of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc. are considered, and the conditions of the sentencing as shown in the argument of this case shall be comprehensively considered.

Judges Song-ho

Judges Kim Jong-Gyeong

Judge Maximum-type Reserve