Defendant

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order

Mobile Hunting (prosecution) and trial;

Law Firm KEL, Attorneys Lee Jae-hwan et al.

Suwon District Court High Court Decision 201Mo83, 2011NaMa7 (Consolidated Judgment) Decided October 14, 2011

The appeal filed by the defendant and the respondent against the attachment order shall be dismissed.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by medical treatment and custody.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

The sentencing of the court below (the maximum of four years of imprisonment and the minimum of three years of imprisonment) on the defendant and the person subject to the request to attach an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is too unreasonable.

(b) Markets:

The defendant committed the crime of this case in a state of mental disorder due to mental illness caused by depression, etc. as a juvenile, and the victims of the crime of this case appear to have no impediment to their daily lives after receiving treatment, and agreed with the victim non-indicted 2 and 3, the medical expenses of the victims were paid, and the defendant has no record of criminal punishment.

However, the crime of this case committed by the Defendant was committed against many unspecified victims, and the nature of the crime is not good, and the Defendant appears to have committed the crime of this case in a planned manner, such as searching the place where the crime was committed in advance and preparing the commission of the crime. In full view of various circumstances such as the motive, circumstance, means and method of the crime of this case, the situation before and after the crime of this case, and the Defendant’s age, character, career, environment, etc., the punishment imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable, and therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

2. Part of the attachment order case

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

Although the defendant cannot be deemed to pose a risk of preventing murder again, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misunderstanding the fact that ordering an attachment order.

(b) Markets:

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① the defendant was trying to search for a number of victims using reading rooms with the intent to kill with others; ② the defendant was trying to kill a number of victims using reading rooms by preparing for the commission of the crime; ② the defendant committed the crime of this case against many unspecified victims, ③ according to the mental sentiment of Nonindicted Party 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the judgment of the Supreme Court), the defendant stated that “the defendant has a big ability to make a judgment in the state of depression, and is able to do extreme behavior due to influence, and it is difficult to exclude the possibility of repeating the crime.” In light of the motive, means, relationship with the victim, etc. of the crime of this case, it is reasonable to deem that the defendant pose a risk of repeating the crime of murder again. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders. Meanwhile, since the prosecutor filed a medical treatment and custody claim against the defendant in this court, it is decided as follows through the pleading.

A candidate for medical treatment and custody is a person who lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental illness such as heavy depression.

On March 3, 2009, after being admitted to a high school, the applicant for medical treatment and custody was immediately withdrawn from the high school, and was sentenced to suicide on April 201, without almost about two years after leaving the school. Around that time, the applicant discovered Non-Party 2’s “○○○○” reading room for the victim Non-Party 2, who was located in the Ilyang-si, Mangdong-dong (hereinafter omitted) that was in the vicinity of the hospital that was receiving friendly medical treatment, and prepared to commit a crime, such as killing the students in the reading room with the death of the her being killed and drinking together, after being registered as one day of the above reading room on May 4, 2009, and completing registration as a member on around the 16th day of the same month, and purchasing portable weapons, gasoline, and other goods necessary for fire prevention.

On May 19, 201, at around 23:00, the applicant for medical treatment and custody tried to kill the victims in order by attaching gasoline prepared in advance to the "oman" coefficient, including the victim non-indicted 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 3, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 28, in the front door, the victim's room, including the victim's room, and the victim's room, including the victim's door, corridor, and 26, 27, and 28, and then the victim's room was destroyed from the front door to the above "oman's room" to the above "oman's room.

An applicant for medical treatment and custody needs to receive medical treatment in a medical treatment and custody facility and is in danger of recidivism.

1. Legal statement of a candidate for medical treatment and custody;

1. Each police statement made against Nonindicted 2 and 27

1. Each written statement of Nonindicted 10 and 4

1. Statement of seizure of each police;

1. A report on investigation (a copy of a medical record);

1. The descriptions of a written mental appraisal;

1. The necessity of treatment and the risk of recidivism: The Defendant is recognized as having the necessity of treatment and the risk of recidivism, in full view of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, etc.

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning the facts of reasons for custody;

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the attempted murder) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Medical treatment and custody;

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act

Judges Kim Yong-con (Presiding Judge)