2017 Gohap425 homicide

A

Kim Man (Court) (Court) (Court of Justice) (Court of Justice)

Attorney B

July 13, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

A seized arche (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Criminal facts

Around April 3, 2017, the Defendant: (a) was the victim C (mast, 77 years of age) and the husband’s family, and (b) around 10 years of 10 years of her death, and (c) had been able to find it difficult for the Defendant to live due to dementia, and (d) had been aware that the victim’s memory and power has deteriorated due to dementia; (b) had been fright to kill the victim; (c) the Defendant prepared a note to kill the victim; and (d) 1 (c) he was under the table of the dwelling space table (weight 1kg) while the victim was locked.

On April 14, 2017, 14:00, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Jongno-gu, checked that the victim was locked by drinking 2 soldiers in his house, and entered the inner bank, thereby gathering her old age prepared in advance, and putting the head part of the victim into several times, thereby causing the victim to die due to damage to the two sides of the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of witness to E - One answer-type 1;

1. A request for appraisal, a briefing report, a drilling report, and a drilling report;

1. On-site photographs, the results of autopsy, the body list at the scene of a change of body, the attachment of postmortem photographs, the body of body, the written result of autopsy, and the protocol of autopsy;

1. Records of police seizure and list of seizure;

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act; Selection of limited imprisonment

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

The Defendant suffered from severe depression and caused mental pressure due to the severe dementia symptoms of the wife, who is the victim. As such, the Defendant committed the instant crime while killing the wife and sculing sculing sculing sculbling sculing sculing scule with himself. Accordingly, the Defendant is unable to properly memory the process of the instant crime or the circumstances after the instant crime.

Therefore, given that the Defendant committed the instant crime under the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental or physical disorder, the punishment against the Defendant ought to be mitigated.

2. Determination

A. According to evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendant: (a) prepared a note on April 3, 2017, the day before the crime was committed; and (b) concealed the victim’s face to be used for committing the crime; (c) the Defendant at an investigative agency, “B, around 11:0 on the day of the crime, she provided meals with the victim; and (d) the victim was locked. In addition, at the ward, the Defendant did not appear to be able to have been able to kill the victim after she was able to shot up to a half of TV, and she was able to shot up the head of the body of the victim who was shot up to the bed down to the bed. The Defendant did not appear to have shot up to the bed of the victim’s head at the time when she died of the victim’s head, and did not appear to be shot up to the extent to which she did not appear to be shot.”

As can be seen, the Defendant made a statement by specifically memorying the situation before and after the instant crime and the process of the instant crime, and considering such circumstances including the background of the instant crime and the Defendant’s behavior before and after the instant crime, it is difficult to view that the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol so as to have lost the ability to discern things or make decisions. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is rejected.

B. Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act provides that even if the defendant was in a state of mental disability due to the intoxication of alcohol, Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act does not apply to an act of a person who predicted the occurrence of danger and caused a person's mental disorder as a child.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the defendant himself/herself is recognized to drink in order to kill the wife who is the victim. In light of this, the defendant is already aware of his/her intention to kill the victim and thus, the defendant cannot be mitigated due to mental disorder pursuant to Article 10(3) of the Criminal Act. The above assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel against this is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment for not less than five years nor more than thirty years;

2. Scope of recommendations according to the sentencing criteria;

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 2 (Murder with Ordinary homicide) Scope of Special Aggravation (at least 15 years, and at least weapons)

[Special Mitigation] Ad Hoc (including serious efforts for the recovery of damage)

[Special Persons] A planned murder, victims vulnerable to the crime, and cruel methods of committing the crime

3. Determination of sentence;

A. As to sentencing

1) The Defendant, after marriage in 1966, died of his wife’s ties for 51 years. At the time of committing the instant crime, the victim was 77 years old and was unable to freely her ability due to the decline of her ability to live.

In addition, the symptoms of the victim’s dementia began to have occurred more than two weeks prior to the instant crime. On March 30, 2017, the first day before the instant crime, the victim visited and inspected the Seoul Alternative Hospital, which was the first day, with the Defendant and the Defendant on March 31, 2017, which was the next day. The victim was also aware of the victim’s symptoms of dementia at the stage of commencing medical treatment and treatment. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant, her husband, was suffering from economic, mental, or physical damage due to the victim’s dementia.

Rather, the Defendant had recently attempted suicide due to depression, and the symptoms of the victim who is in charge of family's economic power are difficult to live solely with the existing obligations. If the health of himself and the victim is worse, it seems that it would become more economically difficult. In addition, the Defendant had a vague fear about the disease called dementia in a state where the symptoms of the victim are not clearly verified, and given up treatment and nursing for the victim who is easily easily identified.

In such a situation, on March 31, 2017, the Defendant confirmed the symptoms of the dementia between the Fney and the victim with the victim, and drafted a note with the victim before the crime was committed. The Defendant was transferred to the bottom of the cremation room where the victim mainly locked and lives in the inner room in order to use one of the rings under the table table for murder. As such, the Defendant completed preparation for murdering the victim. On the day of the crime of this case, the Defendant kills the head of the wife who was locked in the inner room, and carried the alcohol into the inner room, and killed him cruel and cruelly.

It is more true in light of the fact that the victim suffered from dementia does not take care of the suffering from dementia, but rather destroys legal and moral responsibilities based on marriage and merely destroys the victim's dynamic and brooms. The life of the victim has a noble and noble value that cannot be altered. In addition, it can be said that the victim suffered from the crime of this case in light of the method of crime of this case, the victim was unable to suffer from the victim. Furthermore, the victim was able to have an opportunity to recognize the progress of the inspection conducted in Seoul Hospital and to decide how to live and dispose of his remaining life on his own. The defendant also has to endeavor to ensure that the victim's dementia takes place as her husband, and even if the victim was able to sufficiently organize her life as her husband's husband and her husband, the defendant was living together with the victim without permission of the victim's life-related life-related life-related person's life-related person.

Therefore, the crime of this case requires strict punishment of the defendant due to the very poor nature and circumstances of the crime.

2) However, the Defendant: (a) committed the instant crime, immediately after the instant crime, divided his mistake into one another; and (b) sought death from his wife. The Defendant attempted suicide after the instant crime; (c) but failed to do so. The Defendant is aged 7 years old, and is not in a state of health due to depression and excessive drinking, etc. In addition, the Defendant was punished by a fine for a long time, other than that subject to punishment twice prior to the instant crime.

In addition, the Defendant committed the instant crime by making an erroneous judgment by making an excessive fear of the symptoms of dementia that have been discovered by his wife, and the fact that the suffering of patients and their families due to dementia is too difficult to check out is also recognized by our society. As such, there are reasonable grounds to consider the motive for the Defendant’s crime. All of the family members of the victim, such as the Defendant’s children, children, and the victim’s speech, want to take care of the victim.

In addition, taking into account all the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentence shall be determined by lowering the lower limit of the recommended sentence in the sentencing guidelines, and the sentence shall be determined like the order.

B. With respect to confiscation, the prosecutor tried to confiscate only one Order (No. 2). However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, two Orders confiscated from the defendant's house are 2, No. 1, No. 2, A Order No. 2 in the ward, one (No. 1) out of two A Order No. 2 under the ward before the crime was committed, and the defendant concealed one (No. 1) out of the body of an A Order No. 2 under the ward before the crime was committed, and the defendant was killed at a time of the victim's head, and the defendant was aware of the victim's face at the time of committing the crime. After committing the crime, it appears that the defendant was found that he was aware of the victim's face, and that he was found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been found to have been discovered to the victim's face of the victim.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above ward was a party (No. 2) who was a party to the crime of this case, and thus, it cannot be deemed that it was an object of confiscation under Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act. Thus, it shall not be separately confiscated.

The presiding judge, judge Kim Jong-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization