The case holding that the defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment for the defendant, in case where he was prosecuted on the ground that he killed five persons, such as the victim, who was on the main place where poisonous gases and heat, etc. were spreaded to the entire building in the main place where many people used by using fire fighting tools, such as carers, etc., and gasoline, and the main place where many people used by them by using gasoline, destroyed the above building in which people are present, and caused five death, such as the victim, etc. who was on the main place where poisonous gases and heat, etc. were spread to the entire building, and at the same time suffered bodily injury to the 29 persons such as the victim Gap, etc., and at the same time he sustained bodily injury, etc.

When the defendant raised a dispute with the main point operator Gap and the credit rating problem, it is the case that he was prosecuted for the death of the main building, the fire prevention of the main building, and the injury of the main building such as the victim Gap and 29 persons such as the main place of the building on the wall, floor, etc. inside the main place of the building that was used by a large number of people using gasoline and the main place of the building that was 238.02mm2 in a fluor in a fluor length. As a result, he destroyed the above building in which people exist, and as a result, destroyed five persons such as the victim who was on the main place of the building due to poisonous gas and heat, etc., and suffered the injury to the 29 persons such as the victim Gap.

In order to prevent fire, the defendant not only prepared a dog, newspaper site, gasoline, etc. in advance (in the process, theft of things by destroying another person's structure or ship) but also confirmed that there are many people within the main place, and then dusting gasoline immediately after which he gets off the gasoline, and then combining it with the main entrance door, which was prepared immediately, prevented people inside the main place from leaving the door through the entrance, and the defendant cannot be deemed to have committed any contingent crime in light of the series of crimes committed by the defendant, and rather, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed any crime in light of the process and methods of the crime committed by the defendant, and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant committed any crime in which the victims died or died even if he was aware of the fact inside the main place of the crime, and it is reasonable to view that the defendant committed any crime in which the victims died, as seen above, and that the defendant was committed with intent to kill a large number of people, since it is difficult to find the defendant to have committed any crime in the first place through the investigation.

Articles 51, 52(1), 164, 319(1), 329, and 330 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Freeboard iron and one other

Attorney New Ho-hee

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

A seized Rater (No. 3) shall be confiscated.

From around 2008, the Defendant frequently used the Victim Nonindicted Party 1’s “○○○○ club” operated in Gunsan-si ( Address 1 omitted), and had a few years ago, which had to pay alcohol to the victim several times on credit from the above club, and the victim Nonindicted Party 1 had an uneasy appraisal by failing to provide the Defendant with some alcohol so that it could interfere with its business, such as drinking alcohol at time when the Defendant was at the time.

While the above situation continues, the defendant raised a dispute with Non-Indicted 1 on June 16, 2018 due to the issue of credit value with Non-Indicted 1, etc., which led to the king of the above club.

1. Larceny and intrusion upon a structure;

On June 17, 2018, at around 14:00, the Defendant got into front of the (name omitted) conference office located in Gunsan-si ( Address 2 omitted) conference office. After having intruded into the above office office through the entrance, the Defendant thought to use the above ○○○ club, and used the above ○○○ club as a substitute finium, two plastic bags, two plastic bags, and newspaper sites under the market price managed by Nonindicted Party 2 in the above office.

2. Larceny and intrusion upon a ship;

On June 17, 2018, at around 18:09, the Defendant intruded the victim Nonindicted 3’s “△△△△△△” owned by the victim Nonindicted 3, who was anchored in the vicinity of a military port located in the Gunsan-si (hereinafter omitted), and stolen the Defendant’s use of the said ○○○ club, with a 20-liter gasoline tank containing a gasoline amounting to 14,00 won at the victim’s market price, which was kept in custody of the said vessel in order to use the said ○○ club.

3. Existing buildings, fire prevention, death or injury resulting from fire; 1) Existing buildings and fire prevention;

On June 17, 2018, at around 21:53, the Defendant moved to the above ○○○○ club, a single-story building located in Gunsan-si ( Address 1 omitted), and opened the above club with the entrance of many people, and opened the door door to the front door of the entrance to prevent them from opening the door door by attaching it to the entrance to the front door of the entrance to prevent them, as described in paragraph (1).

The Defendant: (a) laid down the wall, floor, etc. inside the above club in a fluorial length with a total floor area of 238.02 square meters; (b) destroyed the above building with about 54,924,00 won for recovery expenses; and (c) accordingly, the victim Nonindicted 4 (57 years old) who was in the above club caused the fluoral gas and heat to spread to the entire building; (d) caused the victim Nonindicted 4 (57 years old) to die of five victims, as described in the attached Table I in the attached Table II, by taking advantage of toxic gas, etc., after being transmitted to the Y University Hospital in the process of treatment due to a fire and being sent to the b3:25 years old, while taking treatment, the Defendant sustained the victim Nonindicted 1 (55 years old), at the same time, with the victim Nonindicted 1 (55 years old) suffering from the injury of the victim, as shown in the attached Table II.

4. Night-time theft of vessel;

On June 17, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 23:03 on June 23, 2018, at the Gunsan-si (hereinafter omitted) located near the Gun mountain bridge No. 5 owned by the victim Nonindicted 5, who was anchored in the vicinity of the Gun mountain bridge No. 3; (b) when she was able to carry his clothes in the course of flying off as described in paragraph (3), infringed on the said vessel in order to bring the clothes into the said vessel; (c) then, the Defendant cut off one of the biter in the market under the control of the victim in the crew room and one of the national defense

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each prosecutor’s statement about Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 6

1. Each police protocol on Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 19, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 35, and Nonindicted 36

1. A medical certificate of death, a report on the results of the investigation of dead bodies, a report on the results of autopsy of dead bodies, a report on the request for appraisal, and a postmortem photo;

1. Each medical certificate, medical opinion, medical opinion, and reply;

1. Protocols of seizure, list of seized articles and photographs thereof;

1. On-site identification reports, reports on results of field identification in fire incidents, reports on fire-prevention results, investigation reports on the scene of fire, legal chemical appraisal reports, string buildings, fire-prevention, photographs of the death or death at fire-prevention sites, and drawings of the place

1. An investigation report (related to the verification of CCTV images on a suspect's escape site), a criminal investigation report (Attachment to CCTVs on a gasoline theft site), a criminal investigation report (related to the verification of CCTVs on a suspect's escape route), a criminal investigation report (related to the verification of CCTVs on-site and photograph), a criminal investigation report (related to the verification, etc. of a log purchased by a suspect), and a criminal investigation report (the verification, etc. of a

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 164(2) latter part of Article 164(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act, main sentence of Article 164(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of each Criminal Act, Article 329(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(1) of each Criminal Act (a)(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 319(2) of each Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (Punishment to be imposed on the crimes against the death or injury to each existing structure, and the crimes against the death or injury to each existing structure, punishment and the crimes against the victim Nonindicted 37 of the largest punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

In regard to the crime of death or injury to existing buildings, each imprisonment sentence shall be applied to the crime of life imprisonment, theft, intrusion upon residence, and intrusion upon ship.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 (Cases of other Punishments shall not be imposed because of Selection of Punishment for Life or Fire Caused by Central Existing Buildings, the Punishment of which is the largest)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Scope of legal applicable sentences: life imprisonment;

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

Since each of the crimes of this case, each of the crimes of this case whose sentencing criteria are set is concurrent crimes, each of the existing buildings, and the existing buildings, and the crime of causing death or bodily harm, among them are mutually concurrent crimes, the sentencing criteria do not present separate treatment methods for the ordinary concurrent crimes, and thus it is difficult to apply the sentencing criteria as they are. However, since it is necessary to refer appropriately to the sentencing criteria, among each of the crimes in reference, the recommended types under the sentencing criteria should refer to the lower limit by examining the scope of recommendation types under the sentencing criteria for the crime of causing death or bodily harm, which

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (Death or Injury caused by Fire, such as Present Living Building, etc.) by fire, such as main building, etc.

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: In the event that a large number of harm to human life is caused, the motive for the crime that may be criticized.

Measures to mitigate: Self-denunciation

[Determination of Recommendation Area] Aggravation

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years or imprisonment for life

3. Determination of sentence: Imprisonment for life;

A. Legal principles on the determination of whether to sentence death penalty

Considering the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, the sentence of death penalty is an extremely exceptional punishment that can be introduced by the dual judicial system of a marry country. In light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment, the sentence of death penalty should be allowed only where objective circumstances exist to recognize it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of punishment. Therefore, in a sentence of death, the sentence of death penalty should be determined by thoroughly examining all the following: (a) the offender’s age, occupation and career, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, relationship with the victim, motive for the crime, degree of preparation, means and method of preparation, remaining and bad degree; (b) the victim’s seriousness and degree; (c) the victim’s heart and attitude after the crime; (d) the degree and degree of risk of recidivism; and (e) the degree of risk of recidivism; and (e) the court’s subjective character and conduct should be determined after examining the aforementioned factors.

B. Determination

Since it is impossible to recover damage by any means if the life of a human being is infringed on one occasion as an absolute one that cannot be infringed without permission, an intentional act of infringing another's life cannot be used as an anti-human and anti-social act, excluding the reasons therefor.

The crime of this case was committed by using fire-fighting tools, such as a dog, etc. prepared in advance, and gasoline, which led to harsh results, such as the death of five victims and the injury suffered by 29 victims. The nature of the crime is extremely bad.

The defendant not only prepared in advance for the purpose of fire prevention (in the process, it did theft of things by destroying another person's structure or ship) but also confirmed that there are many people within the main place, and then cut gasoline, which was immediately prepared in advance, and combine it with a plastic bag, so that people inside the main place can not get out of the main place through the above entrance. In light of the series of crimes committed by the defendant, it cannot be evaluated that the defendant committed the crime of this case by contingency. Rather, the defendant did not think that the defendant committed the crime of this case because he had already been aware of many customers inside the main place, and even if he died or died of them, it would be reasonable to view that the defendant prevented the escape of the victims as above.

In addition, the defendant committed the crime of this case due to the business owner and dispute over the credit rating problem. Even if the defendant's statement was based on the defendant's statement, the credit rating is limited to 300,000 won, and the motive of the crime is considerably difficult in light of the general public's sound common sense, and the illegality and possibility of criticism are considerably large enough to be unrefilled.

At the time, the main entrance and exit of the defendant was the main entrance and exit, and even if there was any other exit out of the main entrance and exit from the main entrance, it is difficult for the employer or employees to withdraw measures such as inducing customers to evacuate through other exit and exit at a rapid speed from the main entrance due to a sudden fire that occurred at the time, so it is virtually impossible for the victims to escape from the main entrance. Therefore, it seems that the victims suffered from the fear and suffering of the victims to the extent that they could not express their words in any way (the victims who were present in this court due to the actual situation at the time and the physical and mental suffering suffered from the suspicion of the situation at that time).

Most victims were the victims of a crime of self-prevention committed by a neighbor or scarcity, etc. while having a meeting with the Defendant and a person without a single-scarcity. The bereaved family members of the victims who died due to the Defendant’s criminal act lost their love family members per day. They seem to live in a day due to unreparable loss and scarcitys. The victims who suffered from the Defendant’s criminal act also suffered serious bodily injury on the main parts of the body, such as face, instrument, and pulmonary injury, and pulmonary stress, etc. It seems that they need to live in a life or for a considerable period of time due to aftermathic or considerable period of time.

Therefore, the bereaved family members of the deceased victims, the victims of injuries, and their families want to feel a extreme sense of decentralization against the defendant, and put the defendant to a severe punishment. Nevertheless, since the crime of this case was committed, the defendant did not make efforts to seek a letter or compensation to the victims, their bereaved family members, and their families until now, and in light of the economic situation of the defendant, it is difficult to recover from damage in the future.

In full view of the aforementioned motive of the Defendant’s crime, the means and method of the crime, the degree of damage, the circumstances after the crime, etc., as well as the general preventive necessity to prevent the victims from committing the same crime as the instant case, the prosecutor’s request for the death penalty against the Defendant is acceptable.

On the other hand, the following circumstances should also be considered in determining the sentencing of the Defendant. The Defendant appears to have committed a mistake when he/she led to the confession of all the crimes from the beginning of the investigation to the present court. In addition, upon Nonindicted 8’s solicitation, which was the last day of June 18, 2018, the Defendant voluntarily surrendered to the police through Nonindicted 8, who reported to the police via Nonindicted 8.

Before committing the instant crime, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year in 194 and eight months in 195 with prison labor for obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. on several occasions, and was sentenced to criminal punishment on several occasions. However, all of the above criminal records have been prior to 20 years from the instant crime, and the remaining criminal records except for those sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year in August due to the crime of property damage, etc. on the two criminal records and the 1991, with the exception of those sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year in the above two criminal records and the 1991, are relatively minor fines, and the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime.

The Defendant had been hospitalized several times from around 2009, prior to the instant crime, due to cerebral disease, such as cerebral typosis, external typosis, and Albimer’s disease. According to the results of the clinical Review, the Defendant appears to have been somewhat deteriorated in terms of the influence on the time and place due to cerebral disease and drinking over a long time, etc., and the Defendant appears to have been under the influence on the instant crime. Such unstable mental state of the Defendant appears to have influenced the instant crime.

In light of the aforementioned circumstances, life imprisonment is also not deprived of the defendant's life and is a very heavy punishment whose contents are the permanent isolation from society, and Article 72 (1) of the Criminal Act and other relevant statutes provide that parole may be granted to a person for whom 20 years have passed from among the convicts sentenced to life imprisonment. However, the issue of parole is determined through a separate review by the parole review committee on the formation of a sentence and risk of recidivism, etc., in addition to the convict period. Thus, it is inappropriate to put the defendant under the same time as the actual limited imprisonment solely for the reason that there is possibility of parole in the execution of a sentence after the judgment. Even if parole is conducted at the execution of a sentence, in light of the minimum number of arms necessary for parole, when considering the defendant's parole is possible, it is difficult to readily conclude that there is objective circumstance to recognize that the defendant is justifiable in the death penalty even if he/she is sentenced to death penalty.

Therefore, rather than a death penalty that deprives the defendant of his/her life, it is reasonable to prevent recidivism and protect society from extreme crimes, while allowing the defendant to see his/her mistake through a prison life and live with the mind of committing the crime of deceiving the victims.

For the same reason, the defendant shall be sentenced to life imprisonment and sentence as ordered.

[Attachment] List of Offenses I (Death: omitted)

[Attachment] Crime List II (Bodily Injury: omitted)

Judges Lee Jae-jin (Presiding Judge)

1) The instant structure constitutes not residential but existing buildings, not residential, which are the main building.

Note 2) The mere fact that a court can voluntarily reduce the punishment against a self-denunciation (Article 52(1) of the Criminal Act) is not necessarily mitigated (see Supreme Court Decision 92Do962 delivered on August 14, 1992).

3) Functions necessary for basic sports functions, implementation functions, social judgment-making, planning, and decision-making functions.

4) However, in light of the fact that no death penalty has been executed for a considerable period in Korea and it seems difficult for Korea to execute the death penalty in the future, and on the other hand, it is necessary for our society to declare the principle that the act infringing upon the dignity of human life at the same time as securing the safety of our society and its members and at the same time securing the security of our society and its members, it is necessary that our society does not unfortunate the tolerance of human life.