2015 Gohap250 Murder, Existing Buildings and Fire Prevention

Red ○ (72 years old, South) (72 years old, South), technicians

Housing Ansan-si

Nationality China

Maximum (Public Prosecutions) and Kim Pung (Public Trial)

Attorney Kim Tae-dae

September 15, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for five years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

피고인은 피해자 함00 ( 48세 ) 가 운영하는 ▣▣토건 회사로부터 2014 . 12 . 경부터 2015 . 3 . 경까지 사이에 용인 물류센터의 목수일을 용역받아 목수 팀장으로 일을 한 중 국 국적의 외국인이다 .

From the end of March 2015, the Defendant demanded the victim to pay the monthly wage of 47 million won on February and 3, 2015, which was not received from the victim, from the end of March, 2015, and the victim paid all wages and continued to refuse the Defendant’s demand, the Defendant was raising the mind to receive wages by threatening the victim to spread gasoline to the victim.

피고인은 2015 . 5 . 7 . 13 : 20경 용인시 처인구에 있는 조립식 판넬 구조의 위 ▣▣토 건 회사 사무실에 미리 준비한 20리터 용량의 휘발유 통을 들고 들어가 , 사무실에 들 어가자마자 그곳 소파에 앉아있던 피해자의 머리 위로 상당량의 휘발유를 들이부어 피 해자의 머리 , 어깨 , 팔 등 몸통과 소파 , 사무실 바닥 등에 휘발유가 흐르게 하고 , 이를 보고 112에 신고하려던 위 회사 직원 전00의 전화기를 빼앗아 바닥에 내던지고 발로 밟고 , 전00이 사무실 밖으로 나가자 출입문 위쪽 잠금장치를 안에서 걸어 잠가 아무 도 들어오지 못하게 한 다음 한 손에는 미리 가지고 온 라이터를 들고 다른 한 손에는 사무실에 있던 휴지 뭉치를 든 채로 피해자에게 노임을 달라고 말하였다 .

In order to say that the defendant continued to be a victim's ‘not being a law' or ‘I do not respond to the defendant' and to the defendant's demand, the defendant did not participate in the timbly and caused murder to kill the victim with a fire to the victim's office, and at the same time, transferred the victim, her whole 00 to the face and her face.

그러나 피고인은 피해자가 황급히 옷을 벗고 시정된 문을 열고 밖으로 뛰쳐나가 바 닥에 몸을 뒹굴어 불을 끄고 이후 병원으로 후송되어 피부이식수술 등의 치료를 받음 으로써 , 피해자에게 약 6주간의 치료가 필요한 안면부 , 몸통 , 오른쪽 팔 부위 2도 화상 의 상해를 가하였을 뿐 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그치고 , 소파에 옮겨 붙은 불도 더 이상 번지지 않고 꺼지는 바람에 미수에 그쳤다 .

Accordingly, the defendant attempted to kill the victim, and at the same time, tried to kill the victim, and attempted to destroy the personal dried water.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 254, 250(1)( point of attempted murder) of the Criminal Act, Articles 174 and 164(1) of the Criminal Act

An attempted fire prevention of a structure

1. Competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishments imposed on any crime of homicide with heavy punishment)

1. Selection of penalty;

Optional of limited imprisonment

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 (Attempted Crime) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under Acts: Imprisonment for two years and six months to fifteen years; and

2. Scope of recommended sentencing guidelines1);

A. Crimes of murder;

[Determination of Type 2] Type 2 (Ordinary homicide)

【Special Mitigation Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins Domins

【Aggravated homicide】

[Determination of the recommended territory] Reduction Area (Recommendation and Punishment of homicide) (The scope of recommendation and Punishment of homicide)

The lower limit of the scope shall be 1/3, the upper limit shall be 2/3, respectively.

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor of two years to four years to eight years

(b) Scope of revised recommendations: Imprisonment for two years and six months to eight years (based on the lowest limit of applicable sentences in law); and

3. Determination of sentence;

In the instant crime, the Defendant attempted to kill the victim by putting gasoline on the victim and his office, etc. with a fire, resulting in an injury that requires six weeks’ medical treatment and attempted to commit the instant crime. Considering the fact that the Defendant prepared for the commission of the crime in advance, the risk of the commission of the crime, and the degree of injury, liability for such crime is established.

It should be hot.

However, the suspension of execution is to be ordered by taking into account the following: (a) the Defendant paid KRW 30,000 to the victim and agreed with the victim, and the victim et al. wanted to leave the Defendant’s seat; (b) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of demanding the payment of overdue wages by the team members; (c) there are circumstances to take into account the motive; (d) the Defendant committed the instant crime in the number of times; (d) the Defendant did not have any criminal power; (e) the Defendant did not have any criminal power; and (e)

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Yang Sung-soo

Judges Doese defect

Justices Kim Jae-su