2017Do1243 Murder

(Name of Recognized Crime: Concealment of the dead body)

(c) Child Welfare Violation;

(d) Abuse;

(e) Child Welfare violation (Child-Care; hereinafter the same shall apply);

1. (a). (c) A

2. b. (c) d. B

Defendants

Attorney F (for Defendant A)

Attorney CU (for the national ship, defendant B)

Busan High Court (Chowon) Decision 2016No324 Decided January 11, 2017

April 13, 2017

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to Defendant A’s ground of appeal

A. (1) The lower court found Defendant B, C, and E’s legal statement at the court of first instance, and the victim I’s statement to be credibility on the facts indicated in its reasoning regarding the crime of violation of the Child Welfare Act. In light of the aforementioned circumstances, the lower court found the victim guilty on the ground that the victim did not have any other educational means for the victim at the time of the crime of this case, as well as the act of abuse or on the ground that the victim’s act of abuse or on the day of death was committed, and thus, the victim could not have been aware of the fact that there was considerable harm to the victim’s life, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the victim’s duty to protect the victim’s life on the day of death, and thus, found the victim guilty of the victim’s death on the day of the crime of assault and abuse. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as stated in the facts of assault and assault on the victim’s part of the victim’s body, which caused the victim’s death on the day of this case.

B. Meanwhile, the lower court: (a) caused Defendant B and C to live a community life at one’s home; (b) formed a emotional and mental parent-subsidiary relationship with Defendant B and C with one’s own territorial ability while living together; (c) as such, Defendant B and C ceased to have a human relationship with another; and (d) went away from the situation of blind the Defendant’s horse while living together with the Defendant, Defendant B and C intentionally committed the instant crime, including the instant abusive act, which provided only one day meals to the Defendant at one’s own house; and (b) took into account that Defendant B and C’s death was committed with the victim’s mental capacity despite being aware of the victim’s inherent personality disorder; and (c) on the other hand, Defendant B and C’s death was committed with the victim’s intention to die at one’s own time without the victim’s consent to death, and thus, it was deemed that Defendant B and C did not have been subject to criminal punishment against the victim’s health and injury. In particular, the lower court ordered the victim’s death at one’s own own own own own own time to rest.

Examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant A’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, the means and consequence of the crime as seen earlier, motive, and circumstances after the crime, which are acknowledged by records and evidence, the sentencing of the court of first instance that upheld the judgment of the court of first instance that sentenced Defendant A 20 years to imprisonment with prison labor, even if considering various circumstances asserted by Defendant A as the grounds for appeal, is too unreasonable.

2. As to Defendant B’s ground of appeal

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance for 15 years and sentenced Defendant B to imprisonment with prison labor, taking into account favorable circumstances, such as the following: (a) each of the crimes of this case was committed in a state of mental disorder caused by the bad character of the crime; (b) Defendant B committed each of the crimes of this case under a state of mental disorder caused by the emulsion of depression and the reliance disorder; (c) Defendant B was under serious difficulties with the external attitude of the former husband; and (d) Defendant B was under a state of mental disorder caused by the emulsion of depression and the reliance disorder; and (d) Defendant B was under a state of mental disorder, with the full dependence of her most lives on the part of the former husband; and (e) Defendant A was under a state of abuse and violence; and (e) Defendant B was under a state of her own life, resulting in the occurrence of each of the crimes of this case; and (e) Defendant B’s criminal punishment without any history of criminal punishment; and (e) Defendant B was under a first offender.

Examining various circumstances that are the conditions for sentencing, such as Defendant B’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, which are acknowledged based on records and evidence, the sentencing of the court below that sentenced Defendant B 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor is too unreasonable even when considering various circumstances asserted in the grounds for appeal by Defendant B.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Ki-taik

Justices Kim Yong-deok

Jeju High Court Decision 201Na1548

Justices Kim Gin-young