2015 Gohap759 homicide

2016 high altitude8 (Joint Attachment Orders)

2016 early 254 (Joint Probation Orders) Probation Order

A person whose attachment order is requested, or a person whose probation order is requested;

○○ (61 - 1), an agent driver

Domink Pool of Yeonsu-gu Incheon

Reference domicile Incheon Dong-gu

Kim Jong-won (Lawsuits), Cho Jong-sung, Kim Jong-sung, and Profit-making (Trial)

Attorney Yoon Ma-tae

May 26, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for fifteen years.

A seized kitchen shall be confiscated by one kitchen (Seizure No. 1).

All requests for the instant attachment order and probation order are dismissed.

Criminal facts

The defendant was aware of the victim Kim-○ (the age of 56) who operated the "○○○ Acting Driving on the fourth floor of the same building when operating the "○○○○○ on the 1st floor of training ○○○○ in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, and was frequently found in the singing room operated by the victim, and was paid in close relation with the victim.

On November 21, 2015: (a) around 19:15, the Defendant, while playing at the above ○○○○ driving office, had the Defendant enter the examination room in the Kim Il-dong Kim Jong-gu, i.e., “I am ○ and I am. I am see,” and “I am see,” but there is no fact,” “I am YB.” The Defendant called “I am ○○ and I am am son.” The Defendant called “I am, I am son, I am am son. I am am son, I am am son. I am am son. I am son,

As above, the Defendant asked at the victim who was on the phone of the Defendant and found in the above office “I would not say that I would like to do so?” However, I would like to say “I would at any time I would like to have the victim be able to take a punishment? However, there is no fact that I would like to say that I would like to say that I would not be able to take a punishment? There is no fact. “I would like to answer the answer, I would like to see that I would like to think I would like to kill I would like to kill I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to write I would like to see. I would like to say that I would like to see I would like to see I would like to say I would like to do so? I would like to see the front part of I would like to see that I would like to see. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see the victim.

Ultimately, the Defendant murdered the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Partial statement of the witness Kim Il-chul

1. Some of the interrogation records of each prosecutor's office against the accused;

1. Each police statement of Park Jong-chul and Kim Il-chul;

1. Written appraisal (the fingerprints taken from the field knife case) and requests for appraisal;

1. A photograph, motion picture, etc. of the scene of crime;

1. Details of the currency of the victim on the day of the incident;

1. A report of investigation (a description of autopsy);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant only served a kitchen with the victim one time, and the victim died with the part of the above knife, and the victim did not put the part of the victim with the above knife in order to kill the victim. In other words, the Defendant did not have the intention of murder.

2. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

In the crime of murder, the intent of murder does not necessarily require the intention of murdering or planned, but it is sufficient to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing the death of another person due to his own act. The recognition or predictability of murder is not only conclusive, but also it is so-called willful negligence. In a case where the defendant contests that there was no intention to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, whether the defendant had the intention to commit murder should be determined by taking into account the objective circumstances before and after the crime, such as the background leading up to the crime, motive, existence of the prepared deadly weapon, type, method of attack, part of the attack, degree of the occurrence of the consequence of death, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do734, Apr. 14, 2006, etc.).

B. Determination

(1) According to the evidence adopted earlier, the following circumstances are recognized:

(1) ① The kitchen, used by the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime, is a deadly weapon with the total length of 33 cm and the blade length of 21 cm, which may lead to a dangerous weapon with which a person can see his name according to the method of use.

② As a result of the autopsy, there remains a 11.5 cm in length on the front part of the victim’s timber, and the end of the chins still remains 6 cm in length on the top of the chins, and the lower part below the left part was sold and the lower part was found to have a chinal window of 4.5 cm in length on the top of the part below the victim’s front part, cut off the front part of the half-strings at the lower part above the part above the victim’s front part, cut off the front part at the lower part above the hins, and the victim was a hicker in the lower part of the right side and its surrounding part, and such hins were the victim’s direct death.

③ However, the fact that not only the front part of the victim’s timber but also the end part of the sphere is presumed to have occurred in the process of defending the defendant’s act by knife that the defendant tried to cover the victim’s upper part of the sphere or the part of the victim’s sphere at least twice. The victim’s upper part of the sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere sphere spher

④ Ultimately, in light of the above victim’s upper part and its degree, it is reasonable to view that the defendant merely knife the knife as the head of the defendant’s state, and the victim was faced with the knife knife with the above knife. Rather, the defendant attempted to knife the part of the victim more than twice in the knife despite the victim’s defensive act, and eventually, the victim’s knife knife took place one time by force.

1. The victim got out of the front part of his knife with knife the knife, so that the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

⑥ 피고인은 이 법정에서 피해자를 칼로 찌를 당시의 상황에 관하여는 구체적 인 기억이 없다고 하면서도 피해자를 칼로 찌르기 전 상황에 관하여는 ' 사건 당일 김 ●●과 함께 술을 마시다가 피해자를 사무실로 불러 서로 언쟁을 하던 중 피해자가 화 가 나서 언성을 높이면서 " 형님 술 좀 그만 드시고 경마도 그만 하세요 . 오지도 않을 형수님에 대한 미련을 버리고 새출발하세요 . " 라고 충고조로 이야기하자 , 피해자에게 " 이 자식 건방지게 형님한테 충고야 . ●●이 말대로 진짜 치받네 . 너 한번 맞아 볼래 . " 라고 윽박질렀고 , 계속하여 피해자가 피고인에게 " 제가 뭐 잘못 말한 게 있습니까 . 형 님 한번 쳐 보세요 . " 라고 말하였다 ' 는 취지로 비교적 상세하게 그 기억을 되살려 진술 하였다 .

또한 피고인은 검찰에서 ' 사건 당일 술을 많이 마셨는데 , 술을 마시고 나면 행 동이 과격해지기도 하고 꿍하고 속으로 참던 것을 말하는 경향이 있는데 순간 우발적 으로 저지른 것 같다 ' 고 진술하기도 하였다 .

According to the statement of the defendant, the defendant was knifely knife by the victim's knife before knife with the victim's knife and knife the victim's knife with his knife and knife his knife with the victim's knife.

(2) As seen earlier, comprehensively taking account of the background and motive leading up to the instant crime, the type and risk of the deadly weapon used at the time, the form of harmful act, the degree and degree of the injury, etc., the victim is deemed to have committed a deep-depth injury to the victim’s life with kitchen knife, which is sufficient to kill the victim, to the extent sufficient to threaten the victim’s life. As such, even if the Defendant did not intend to kill or cause planned murder, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was relatively conclusive and predicted that there was a possibility or risk of causing the victim’s death.

(3) Ultimately, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant had committed murder at the time of committing the instant crime.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The range of applicable sentences: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than thirty years; and

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

【Determination of Type】

To murder, General Purpose homicide

【Determination of the Place of Recommendation】

Basic Area

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Above 10 up to 16 years of imprisonment;

【General Adopteds】

- Mitigation elements: After committing rescue and relief;

3. Determination of sentence: Fifteen years of imprisonment; and

The Defendant administered narcotics for the period between 20 and 30 times, and almost every day after the 40th half of the suspension of medication, relied on alcohol and shows symptoms of alcohol addiction. On the day of the instant case, while under the influence of alcohol, the Defendant committed a crime of homicideing the victim by making the victim a prudent bly, and breathing the victim’s life. As such, the Defendant got out of the victim’s life due to a minor dispute with the victim, as well as of his bereaved family members, and did not receive any tolerance from the bereaved family members up to the day.

However, the defendant was trying to rescue the victim by breaking the victim's knife with the victim's knife and committing a large number of behavior on the part of the victim's knife and breaking the part of the victim's knife with the victim's knife. Although the defendant is dissatisfied with the absence of the intention of murder, it is against the fact that the result of the death of the victim occurred, even though the defendant is in dispute because he did not have the intention of murder, it is against the fact that the result of the death of the victim has occurred, and other sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments, such as the age of the victim, character and behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means, result, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

Determination on requests for attachment orders and requests for probation orders;

1. Summary of the request;

The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime, is highly likely to recommit the murder in consideration of the background, method, etc. of the crime.

2. Determination

A. Article 5(3) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, Etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders provides that “The risk of recommitting a homicide” means a lack of possibility of recommitting a crime, and that there is a considerable probability that a person requesting the attachment order may injure legal peace by committing a homicide again in the future (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do2289, May 10, 2012).

B. The record reveals the following circumstances: (a) there is no record of committing another murder before committing the instant murder; (b) there is no record of committing the instant murder with the intent of murdering or planned murder; and (c) according to the investigation document prepared by the Incheon Protection Monitoring Board, the Defendant’s risk of recidivism assessed according to “KORS - G” falls under the high level (16 points out of the total 30 points), but “high level” level is relatively lower than that of “high level”; and (c) the risk of recidivism assessed pursuant to “the level of recidivism” (20 points out of the total 40 points) of “the level of recidivism risk” (20 points out of the total 40 points); and (d) the Defendant’s risk of death cannot be readily determined by taking account of the following factors:

3. Conclusion

Thus, the request for the attachment order of this case and the request for the probation order of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed under Articles 9(4)1 and 21-8 of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

Judge Long-term Judge;

Judge Lee Lee-soo

Judges Kim Jong-tae