205Gohap38(a) Murder

205Gohap80 (Joints). (b) No accusation

205Gohap87 (Joint) c. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (at night, public order)

East injury)

O0, Driving Engineer

Housing Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government

Permanent domicile, Jincheon-gun 00,000

Han Jin Jina

Attorney Kim -container (Korean Charter)

June 16, 2005

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

One hundred and twenty-six days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Facts of crime

피고인은 1999. 12. 24. 서울중앙지방법원에서 폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반죄 등으로 징역 1년에 집행유예 2년을 선고받고, 2000. 6. 20. 서울고등법원에서 강간죄로 징역 3년을 선고받아 2000. 9. 26. 그 판결이 확정됨으로써 위 집행유예의 선고가 실효되어 2003. 9. 7. 광주교도소에서 그 형의 집행을 종료한 자인바 , 1. 광주교도소 3상 12실에 수감 중이던 2001. 3. 29. 경 같은 호실 수용자 김00과 피고인 간에 폭력사건이 발생하여 사법경찰과 교감 장00을 보조하던 위 교도소 보안과 공장 제1관구 근무자인 교위 배00로부터 기초 조사를 받던 중, 마침 목격자인 같은 호실 수용자 강00이 참고인으로서 위 제1관구 사무실에서 임의로 직접 자술서를 작성한 후, 그 자술서를 위 배00에게 주어 이를 위 배00가 수사기록에 편철하였음에도 불구하고, 위 교도소 폭력사건으로 인하여 가석방 출소를 하지 못하는 등 피해를 입었다고 생각한 나머지, 위 사건을 초동 조사한 위 배00가 피고인의 폭력사건을 조작하기 위하여 위 강00으로부터 제출받은 동인 명의의 1차 자술서를 찢어 공용서류를 손상하고, 위 배00 마음대로 ' 피고인도 위 김00에게 폭력을 행사 ' 한 것처럼 자술서를 작성하여 위 강00 명의의 사문서를 위조하고, 강제로 위 강00으로 하여금 위 자술서에 날인하게 하여 직권을 남용하여 위 강00의 권리행사를 방해하였다는 취지로 허위 고소하여 위 배00로 하여금 형사처벌을 받게 할 목적으로 , 2004. 3. 20. 경 서울 마포구 아현동 소재 피고인의 집에서, 컴퓨터를 이용하여, 사실은 위와 같이 위 배00가 위 강00 작성의 자술서를 찢거나 동인 명의의 자술서를 임의로 작성하여 위 강00으로 하여금 강제로 날인하게 한 사실이 없음에도 불구하고 , “ 피고인은 김00으로부터 일방적으로 폭행을 당하였는데, 배00 교위에 의해 사건이 조작되었다. 배00 교위는 강00 대신 허위 자술서를 작성하여 강00으로 하여금 억지로 문서에 동의하게 한 위법을 저질렀다 ” 는 내용의 고소장을 작성하여, 같은 날 서울 마포구 아현동 소재 우체국에서 등기우편으로 이를 우송하여 2004. 3. 22. 경 광주지방검찰청 민원실에 접수하고, 2004. 5. 1. 경 광주지방검찰청 수사지휘에 따라 위 사건을 수사하던 광주북부경찰서에 고소인 자격으로 출석하여 보충조사를 받으면서, “ 2001. 3. 29. 경 김00에게 일방적으로 구타를 당하였는데, 위 배00가 같은 실에 있던 강00을 참고인 자격으로 조사하면서 저와 김00이 주먹으로 서로 치고 받는 몸싸움을 하였다는 내용의 위 강00 명의의 자술서를 임의로 작성하여 강00로 하여금 강제로 날인하게 하였다 ” 고 허위 진술하고, 2004. 6. 24. 경 광주지방검찰청에 “ 강00은 처음에는 당시 있던 사실대로 강00 자신의 친필로써 자술서를 작성하여 배00 교위에게 주었다. 배00 교위는 위 자술서를 무시하고 그 내용과 다르게 본인이 임의로 자술서를 작성한 다음 강00에게 날인을 강요하여 사건을 조작하였다 ” 고 추가 고소장을 작성하여 제출한 다음, 2004. 9. 15. 위 고소사건에 대한 보완수사 중인 광주고등검찰청에 출석하여 “ 배00 교위는 강00이 처음에 작성한 목격 상황 자술서를 찢 어버리고, 강00의 필체를 모방하여 임의로 강00 명의의 자술서를 작성한 다음 얼굴을 험악하게 하여 날카로운 목소리로 날인하라고 강요하여 강00로 하여금 그 자술서에 무인하게 하였다 ” 고 허위 진술하여, 위 배00을 무고하고 , 2. 2005. 1. 1. 02 : 00경 서울 마포구 염리동 소재 피해자 노00 ( 여, 45세 ) 경영의 호프집에서, 피해자가 영업시간이 끝나 술을 팔지 않는다고 하자 화가 나, 양손으로 피해자의 목을 4회 조르고, 주먹으로 피해자의 왼쪽 눈 부위를 1회 때리고, 피해자의 머리 카락을 잡고 화장실 바닥에 부딪치게 하여 피해자에게 치료일수 미상의 좌안면부열상 등을 가하고 , 3. 평소 처와 자식들에 대한 잦은 폭행과 외도 등 무절제한 생활로 인하여 7년 전 처와 이혼한 후에도 수회 처갓집을 찾아가 전처의 소재를 알려달라며 행패를 부려오던 중, 최근 우연한 기회에 둘째 아들인 피해자 오00 ( 20세 ) 의 연락처 및 피해자와 함께 살고 있는 전처 박00의 주거지를 알게 되자, 설 연휴기간인 2005. 2. 10. 02 : 30경 술에 취한 채 피해자에게 전화를 걸어 만나줄 것을 요구하였으나, 피해자가 경멸하는 듯한 어투로 거절하면서 전화를 끊어버리자, 자식에 대한 실망감과 배신감으로 피해자에게 좋지 않은 감정을 갖게 되었던 바 , 2005. 2. 10. 02 : 55경 서울 서대문구 북아현동 소재 피해자의 집으로 찾아가 피해자에게 전화하여 밖으로 불러낸 다음 집안으로 들어가려고 하였으나, 피해자가 피고인의 옷을 잡아 밖으로 끌어내면서 완강히 제지하는 등으로 아버지인 피고인에게 모멸감을 주자 순간적으로 격분하여 피해자를 살해하기로 마음먹고, 미리 준비하여 소지하고 있던 과도 ( 칼날길이 약 12㎝ 가량 ) 를 오른손에 쥐고, “ 이 새끼 죽여버린다 ” 라고 하면서 달려들어 피해자의 왼쪽 옆구리 부위를 1회 찌르고, 다시 몸통 부위를 찌르려다 방어하는 피해자의 왼쪽 팔 부위를 1회 찌르는 등으로 피해자를 살해하려고 하였으나, 피해자에게 치료일수 미상의 외상성 기혈흉 및 흉벽의 좌창 손상을 가한 것에 그쳐 그 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그친 것이다 .

Summary of Evidence

Facts No. 1 of the holding

1. Statements consistent with the accused's partial statement in the second protocol of the case No. 2004 Godan3526 of the Gwangju District Court;

1. Statement corresponding thereto by a witness 00 in the third trial records of the case;

1. Each statement corresponding thereto among the interrogation protocol of the accused in the cases of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office 2004 punishment No. 77316, and No. 77318, and the interrogation protocol of the police as to the accused in the case of 00 (Provided, That the accused shall make partial statements);

1. Each statement corresponding to the above case's statement by the prosecution against the defendant and the prosecutor's office (Provided, That part of the statement by the defendant is recorded)

1. Each statement corresponding thereto in the letter of criminal complaint in the preparation of the defendant in the above case (in the course of investigation records 4, 65 pages);

1. Statement corresponding thereto among a copy of a written statement drawn up in 00 of the above case;

1. The facts described in Article 2 of the Decision, corresponding thereto, shall be stated in the report attached to the notification of the results of document appraisal by the chief of the Supreme Prosecutors' Office Planning and Coordination Department which is bound to the investigation records of the case

1. Each statement written by the prosecutor's office of Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office, 2005-type No. 10847 and 500-type prosecutor's office, corresponding thereto;

1. The facts set forth in the third of the judgment, which correspond to the parts and degree of the injury in the judgment, among the opinions on 00 preparation of a doctor's o0 preparation bound in the investigation records of the above case;

1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court; 1. Statement corresponding thereto in this court by the witness 00; 1. Statement by the prosecutor's office in Seoul Western District Prosecutor's Office in 2005 case No. 7105, 2005, 100, 100, 100 and 1. Statement by the police corresponding thereto;

1. Statements consistent with the part and degree of injury in the judgment among the medical certificates with respect to 00 preparation of intention Kim 00, which are bound to the investigation records of the above case

1. On-site photographs bound in the investigation records of the instant case, which correspond thereto;

(2) The court shall have no record of the judgment.

1. References to criminal records of the accused;

1. The application of each applicable statute, corresponding thereto, among the investigation reports filed in the investigation records of the cases in Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office 2005 (the investigation reports filed in the investigation records of the cases in No. 7105 of the Seoul Western District Prosecutors' Office (the investigation of the case and the confirmation of the date of release) and the investigation reports filed in the investigation records of the cases in No. 77316 of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office 2004 and No. 77318 (the investigation of

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

Article 156 (False Accusation, Selection of Imprisonment), Article 2 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act (the night injury, the choice of imprisonment), Articles 254 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act (the commission of attempted murder, the selection of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation of repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Limits under proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act to Crimes of Attempted homicide in Judgment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes within Restrictions under the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act as to Crimes of homicide, which are prescribed in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act.

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da11448, Apr. 2

1. Calculation of days of detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument (as to the crime of attempted murder in judgment)

1. As to the assertion that there was no intention to murder

The defendant asserts that he did not have any intention to kill the victim because he did not want to kill the victim. Thus, according to the evidence mentioned above, the defendant could not be excluded from death if the victim did not undergo an emergency operation soon, on the ground that he was her father, and she was salved by saluting his body, and salute in advance at the right salute, and salute in advance, and salute the victim's left right salute and salute the body salute, and salute the victim's body salute, and salute the victim's body salute, and salute the victim's body salute and salute, due to the crime committed by the defendant, the victim could not have died if salute the victim did not undergo an emergency operation. In light of the above circumstances, the defendant's argument that he could not have accepted the above part of the victim's al part of the body.

2. As to the assertion of self-defense

The defendant asserts that the illegality is not the crime because the victim, first of all, reduced excessive amount from the victim in order to prevent it from threatening the defendant by threatening him or her to threaten him or her, and therefore, he or she saw the victim to self-defense.

However, if the victim was found to have his own house at the time of the crime of this case, and the victim was found to have his own knife with the victim's body at the time of the crime of this case, and the victim was deprived of his knife with his knife and knife with the victim's body in order to stop this, and the victim was 00, who was flife with the victim's body before and after his knife with the victim's knife's knife with the victim's knife with the victim's knife', and the victim was knife with the victim's body at the time of his knife', the victim's knife's knife and knife's knife', and the victim's knife had no knife with the victim's body.

3. As to the assertion of mental disability or mental retardation caused by drinking alcohol, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant was in the state of mental disorder or mental retardation under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the attempted murder of this case. Thus, according to the records, the defendant's assertion that he was in the state of mental disorder or mental retardation due to drinking, although he was found to have a little drinking at the time of committing the crime, it cannot be deemed that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions. Thus, the above assertion by the defendant

The defendant, for both reasons of punishment, did not intend to commit each of the crimes of this case without any serious reflector, but to justify their own crimes by various unreasonable and reasonable justifications, and the nature and circumstances of each of the crimes of this case are not good, and the victims do not completely recover from damage, and there is no agreement between the victims and the victims, even though the defendant tried to kill the victim her son with a knife for the purpose of having 00 students of the Gwangju prison who investigated the above case at the early stage in relation to the violence case that occurred in the Gwangju prison, and did not drink the above nife for the purpose of criminal punishment.

In particular, the defendant found the victim'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's son's son's son's son's her son's son's her son'

However, while the defendant is somewhat under the influence of alcohol, it appears that the defendant committed the crime of murder in this case by taking a prudently dividing it into account the motive of the defendant, such as inducing the crime against the defendant, his father without permission, etc. The crime of attempted murder in this case does not interfere with the life of the victim, and other factors of sentencing as stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, family environment, and circumstances after the crime, etc., which are committed after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the disposition.

The presiding judge Lee Jae-il

Private Majors

Newly fixed-line;