2016Gohap942 Murder Attempted

A

Kim Jong-ho (prosecution), Park Jong-jin (Trial)

Attorney B

July 21, 2017

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for five years.

Seized evidence 1, 2, 4 or 5 shall be forfeited from the accused.

Criminal facts

On June 8, 2016, the Defendant was diagnosed as 'Maul disorder' at the Busan East Asian University Hospital and was hospitalized on July 4, 2016, and was discharged from the hospital and received outpatient treatment for outpatients, the Defendant was able to kill an unspecified male with physical color using a flag which was in a warehouse inside the house with a view to resolving depressions.

At around 01:20 on December 2, 2016, the Defendant discovered the victim E, a primary recipient of the third degree mental retardation disorder (53 years old), who was arranging the abolition of a person to be killed in front of the D's aftermath in Busan, the Defendant, who was in front of the D's front door, and was in front of the D's front door in Busan, and discovered the victim E, a primary recipient of the third degree of mental retardation disorder (53 years old), who was in front of the victim's home warehouse, and was in front of the defendant's house warehouse, so long as the victim's head head part (30cm in length) was able to protect the victim's head part (30cm in length) and the victim's head part and hand part were able to take up more than two times in order to capture the situation, and then the victim was killed with the head part and the victim was considered not to have been able to escape.

이로써 피고인은 피해자를 살해하려 하였으나, 피해자에게 약 8주간의 치료를 요하는 안와 골절, 약 5주간의 치료를 요하는 좌측 제2근위지골 골절, 제2중수골 골절, 제3중위지골 골절, 머리 부위를 약 30바늘 꿰매는 봉합수술을 받게 하는 상해를 입게 하는 데 그침으로써, 피해자를 살해하려는 뜻을 이루지 못하고 미수에 그쳤다.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Each investigation report (number 1, 4, 5, 6, 10, 14, 15, 19, 20, 32) and data attached to each investigation report, the table of requests for appraisal, the table of requests for appraisal, the table of requests for appraisal, the statement of requests for appraisal, the statement of requests for appraisal and the statement of requests for appraisal, and the statement of requests for appraisal and the statement of genes;

1. Each existing evidence of seizure set forth in subparagraphs 1, 2, 4, and 5;

(In light of the contents of the Defendant’s written opinion and the Defendant’s final statement, it may be deemed that the Defendant had a mental and physical state at the time of committing the instant crime.

However, in light of various circumstances, such as the background and method of the instant crime, the method of the crime, and the Defendant’s act before and after the instant crime committed by the court lawfully adopted and examined, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things at the time of the instant crime.

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act; the choice of limited imprisonment

1. Confiscation;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 5 years from 30 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 3 (Crime of Murder) Basic Area (Crime of Murder from 5 years to 13 years, since it is a crime of homicide, a crime of homicide from 5 years to 13, the minimum limit of the recommended range shall be reduced to 1/3, and the upper limit shall be reduced to 2/3) [Special Mitigation (Aggravated Mitigation)] / Planned homicide

3. Determination of sentence: Five years of imprisonment;

The defendant's attempt to murder without any particular reason, and attempted to kill the victim with an intention to kill the victim, and the method and quality of the crime are very bad.

However, ① The Defendant led to the instant crime. ② The Defendant did not have any criminal history against the Defendant. ③ At the time of the instant crime, the Defendant was a minor of 18 years of age at the time of the instant crime. ④ The instant crime appears to have been partially caused by the depression that the Defendant was suffering. 5 Defendant agreed with the victim, and the victim did not want the Defendant’s punishment.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and method of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc. shall be determined as the same as the order in comprehensive consideration of various sentencing conditions as shown in the argument of the case.

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Muma decoration

Judges Park Jae-in