(영문) 울산지방법원 2021.2.4. 선고 2020노1424 판결

It is improper for the court below's sentence to be too unfeasible. No. 4 is the object of confiscation, not the evidence No. 3 of the total list of seized articles.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties

Even after the victim's divorce with the victim, the defendant seems to have shown violent inclinations such as assaulting the victim, etc., even during his marriage with the victim, and even after his marriage with the victim, the victim would have caused the victim's death in mind that the victim met with another male and sent the defendant, and caused the victim's shocking pain. "I will throw away to a saw." They want to cause harm to the victim, such as "I will throw away to a saw." On the other hand, the defendant acquired the electronic shock machine without permission with the help of the sawer, and then tried to look back the victim to find out the rest of living while moving the victim with the defendant. And the victim tried to find out the situation where the victim was residing in the heart center operator, and the victim was forced to return to the vehicle until the victim was found in the parking lot.

On May 5, 2020, prior to each of the crimes in this case, the defendant found the victim's residence where restrictions were imposed on the perusal of the resident registration, leading the victim, and he was removed by the discovered her, and the defendant assaulted his child in order to achieve his purpose, such as taking a stone, which is a dangerous and dangerous object, and called "the victim is an electronic shock machine." Although the defendant's arrest was committed in an attempted crime, considering the motive, circumstance, method, etc. of each of the crimes in this case, it is sufficient to view that the series of actions that the defendant appeared after the divorce of the defendant as a witness of violent crimes such as murder, etc. If the defendant's arrest was successful, there is a high possibility that the defendant could not observe, and the risk of recidivism is considerably high. Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's punishment for a serious danger of recidivism is not a simple threat to the defendant's life-related expression or a serious threat of violence, but a simple punishment for the defendant's life-related violence.

Although the prosecutor's argument of unfair sentencing is reasonable, the defendant's argument of unfair sentencing is without merit.

B. As to confiscation

No. 3 (location tracking devices and explanatory note) of the list of seized articles cannot be subject to confiscation because there is insufficient evidence to deem that it constitutes an article provided or intended to be provided for a criminal act. On the other hand, evidence No. 4 (Carrying-on) is not limited to an article provisionally returned but subject to confiscation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 76Do4001, May 24, 197). The prosecutor’s assertion to the same purport is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the judgment shall be rendered as follows ( insofar as the judgment of the court is reversed, it shall not be dismissed separately).

【Discretionary Judgment】

Summary of facts constituting an offense and evidence. The respective corresponding columns of the judgment of the court below are as follows.

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 286 and 283(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 71 subparag. 1 and 17(1) of the Personal Information Protection Act (the receipt of leaked personal information), Articles 280 and 276(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 70-2(1)2 and 12(1) of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. (the possession of unauthorized Electronic percussion locks), Articles 70-2(1)2 and 12(1) of the Act on the Safety Control of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the weight of concurrent crimes committed in violation of the Act on the Safety Management of Firearms, Swords, Explosives, Etc. with the largest punishment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act shall be determined as per Disposition in consideration of the reasons for reversal of sentencing and all the conditions of sentencing indicated in the record.

Judges

The judge of the presiding judge;

Judges Senior Sung-chul

Judges Legislatives

*The first instance judgment is less than attached.

Note tin

1) Evidence records No. 205.

2) As a result of an analysis of murder cases reported by Korean women on the press in 2019, the relationship between husbands and patriates, etc. in 2019.

The number of women killed by men was at least 88 and the number of women living with attempted murder was at least 108. In addition, the number of children of victimized women was at least 88.

B. Around 33 persons, such as parents, relatives, etc., suffered a serious injury or have lost their lives. According to this analysis, at least one person on 1.8 day.

It was found that the gender was at the risk of being killed or murdered by a man of a pro-friendly relationship, such as husband or wife (this statistics are the press).

The motive of the crime that the perpetrator stated is a minimum value reported). In addition, the motive of the crime that the perpetrator stated is required to be mixed or decided, or the identity of the perpetrator and the need to reach an order

There were 58 people(29.6%) and 25 people(12.8%) who refuse the Gu. In addition, 37 people among the total victims were 58 people(29.6%).

Before the murder of a person, the perpetrator was suffering from the so-called salking damage. The perpetrator demands to consolidate with South and North Korea and the victim.

Balking, which eventually led to murder.