Defendant 1 and two others

Final Award

Attorneys Yellow-sung et al.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for six years, by imprisonment for four years, and by imprisonment for three years, respectively.

The number of days of detention prior to the issuance of this judgment shall be 74 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 1 and 3, and 76 days each of the above punishment against Defendant 2.

The seized 50CCTex 1 (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 3 on September 16, 2007), 1 column (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 4 on September 16, 2007), 1 strings (Evidence 2 of the record of search and seizure recorded by Nonindicted 4 on September 16, 2007), 1 strings (Evidence 3 of the same record of seizure), 1 strings (Evidence 4 of the same record of search and seizure), 1 3 5 strings (Evidence 8 of the same record of search and seizure), 1 20 strings (Evidence 9 of the record of search and seizure), 1 5 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure), 1 30 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure), 1 5 strings (Evidence 1 of the record of search and seizure prepared by Nonindicted 5G).

Defendant 1, around August 27, 2007, has increased to the extent that it is impossible to cope with the above crimes due to a business depression for several years, left the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son.

At around 07:00 on September 14, 2007, the Defendants driven a train (vehicle number omitted) which was purchased in advance for the instant crime and selected as the place for the commission of the instant crime and opened it on the road at the site of the 2nd apartment construction site that completed the advance response. Defendant 3 was seated on the above van, Defendant 2 was seated on the back seat, respectively, and Defendant 1 was able to sit on the victim Nonindicted 1 (age 15) who was mixed with the Defendants at around 07:50, and was first determined on the victim Nonindicted 1 (age 15) who was able to move out of the train, and then set on the victim Nonindicted 1 (age 15) who was mixed with the Defendants at around 07:50, 1 was able to cut off Nonindicted 1’s body, and then 1 was able to take up Nonindicted 1’s 1’s string to the Defendant’s 1’s body and 2’s 1’s string towards the Defendant 1’s body.

The Defendants parked the vehicle at the parking lot of the above 1st floor of the 3rd apartment. Defendant 1, who enters the above 1st cell phone, parked the vehicle adjacent to the site of the apartment construction work around the 2nd apartment site by driving the above 1st cell phone, and according to Defendant 1’s instructions, Defendant 2 photographs Nonindicted 1 who was removed from the 3nd floor of the above 2nd apartment, return to the 3rd underground parking lot, and Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 continued to watch Nonindicted 1 from the above 1string house: Defendant 1 sent the above 2nd floor of the 1string house to the 4th floor of the Busan 72-3th floor and the 4th floor of the 4th cell phone, and sent the 1string of the 1string house to the 1string of the 1st floor of the 1string house and the 1string of the 1string of the 1string of the 3th floor of the 1string road.

피고인 1은 현재의 위치를 노출시키지 않으면서 공소외 1의 목소리를 들을 수 있게 해 달라는 공소외 2의 요구를 들어주기 위해 위 승합차를 운전하여 부산 남구 우암동 부근에 도착하여 공소외 1로 하여금 공소외 1의 휴대폰을 이용하여 공소외 2와 통화하게 한 후 같은 날 17:00경 피고인 1은 자신이 평소 사용하는 (차량번호 생략) NF쏘나타를 운전하고, 피고인 2, 3도 위 승합차를 운전하여 부산 사상구 삼락동에 있는 삼락공원에 이르러, 피고인 1은 피고인 2에게 공소외 1을 감시하도록 지시하고, 자신은 피고인 3과 함께 위 NF쏘나타로 위 롯데캐슬아파트로 돌아가면서 도중에 지나가는 동서고가도로 중 공소외 2로 하여금 돈을 떨어뜨리도록 지시할 지점에 미리 준비한 빨강색 래커로 화살표를 그리고, 위 롯데캐슬아파트에 도착하여 동거녀인 공소외 6으로부터 공소외 6 소유의 (차량번호 생략) SM5승용차를 빌려 위 SM5승용차를 운전하고 삼락공원으로 가고, 피고인 3은 위 NF쏘나타를 운전하여 삼락공원으로 갔다. 피고인 1은 위 삼락공원에서 다시 피고인 2를 위 SM5 승용차에 태우고 위 롯데캐슬아파트로 돌아와 피고인 2에게 미리 준비한 오토바이를 타고 삼락공원으로 가서 대기하도록 지시하였다. 곧이어 피고인 1은 위 SM5 승용차를 운전하여 삼락공원에 왔다가 용당 부근으로 가 공소외 1의 휴대폰을 이용하여 공소외 2에게 "돈이 준비되었습니까. 내가 6시에 전화를 하겠다"고 말하고 휴대폰을 끊은 뒤 같은 날 19:00경 주례동에서 공소외 1의 휴대폰으로 공소외 2에게 전화하여 돈이 준비되었다는 대답을 듣고 공소외 2에게 "10시에 김해공항 국내선 입구에서 차량을 주차하고 비상 깜박이를 켜고 그 옆에 내려 있으라"라고 말하였는데, 피고인 1은 자신의 휴대폰으로 삼락공원에서 대기하고 있던 피고인 3에게는 “내가 공소외 2에게 약속장소를 계속 변경할 테니 너는 위 노트북으로 무선인터넷에 접속하여 문자메시지로 공소외 2에게 돈을 전달할 장소를 알려줘라. 일단 무선인터넷이 되는 현대무지개아파트로 움직여라”라는 취지의 지시를 하고, 삼락공원에 있던 피고인 2에게는 “내가 전화를 하면 공소외 1은 승합차에 혼자 남겨두고 위 오토바이를 타고 돈을 받기로 한 동서고가도로 아래에서 대기하라”고 지시하였다. 피고인 1은 같은 날 20:30경 김해공항에 도착하여 차를 주차시킨 후 공소외 2가 나타나는지 지켜보다가 공소외 2가 운전하는 것으로 추정되는 푸른색 승용차가 공항로 옆에 있는 에스오일주유소 앞에 비상깜박이를 켜 놓은 것을 발견하고 피고인 3에게 “삼락공원으로 가서 혼자 있는 공소외 1을 지키라”고 지시하고, 공소외 1의 휴대폰으로 공소외 1의 안전에 대한 걱정으로 인해 반항이 억압된 공소외 2에게 "동서고가도로를 타고 진입하여 현대자동차 부근을 지나면서 화살표를 찾아서 그곳에서 아래로 3억 원이 든 가방을 던져라"라고 요구하였다.

However, on the same day, Nonindicted Party 1 used the opportunity for the Defendants to left the said vans alone, and 22:45 on the same day, she cut down by asking the Cheong tape that embling himself as soon as he escaped, and then transferred the escape awareness to Nonindicted Party 2, who rejected Defendant 1’s above demand by Nonindicted Party 1, and the Defendants did not bring about the intent even though they acquired the property by using Nonindicted Party 1’s mother-child Nonindicted Party 1’s fear that may cause the safety of Nonindicted Party 1 by kidnapping Nonindicted Party 1, who was a minor, but did not bring about an injury to the cerebrum, etc. requiring a medical treatment for about 3 weeks due to the above assault by the Defendants, and was detained for about 14 hours and 45 minutes as above.

1. Defendants’ respective statements in this Court

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 1, 2, and 6

1. Investigation records of police inspection, and investigation records of police seizure;

1. Each written diagnosis;

1. Each investigation report (the confirmation of the sending date of threats, hard disks analysis, identification details, and report on the results of digital evidence analysis);

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 5-2 (2) 1 and (6) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 287 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (Attempted Acquisition of Money and Valuables after Kidnapping of Minor, Selection of limited imprisonment), Article 5-2 (2) 3 of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 287 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of bodily injury and confinement of kidnapped and induced minors, Selection of limited imprisonment)

1. Statutory mitigation;

- Defendant 2: Articles 52(1) and 55(1)3(3) of the Criminal Act

· Defendants: Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (each attempted mitigation)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (defendants);

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [Aggravated Punishment Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (aggravated Punishment, etc. on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)]

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 3);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Articles 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act)

1. Inclusion of days of pre-trial detention into the accused;

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Confiscation (Defendant 1, 3);

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act

The Defendants have no particular criminal history before committing the instant crime, and the fact that they are breaking their depth in depth is favorable to the Defendants. However, the instant crime is a matter of demanding large money by kidnapping and confinement of minors, and its statutory punishment itself is very heavy, and there is no reason to consider even when the motive leading to the instant crime was committed. Also, considering the type and method of the instant crime, the Defendants were to purchase in advance the victims knife, wireless set PC, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, etc. to capture the victims, and then share their respective roles in advance. Considering the fact that the Defendants were able to live together with their children, it is inevitable to select them as places around the high-rise apartment, and that the Defendants were able to have their face and e-mail knife at the victim’s time, and that they were forced to capture the victim’s face by using the victim’s e-mail, etc.

[Attachment Intimidation omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-ho (Presiding Judge)