(C) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Rape, etc.)

- Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act, etc. (Profit)

Kidnapping, inducement, etc., and concealment of the corpse;

(C)an order to attach 2013 Jeonno27 (Joint)

A

Defendant and the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor

Courtrooms (prosecutions, public trials), and courtrooms (public trials)

Attorney T (Korean Charter)

Changwon District Court Tongwon District Court Decision 2012Gohap129, 2012 Jeon Jong10 (Consolidated) Decided October 18, 2012

Busan High Court Decision (Chowon) 2012No320, (Chowon) 2012No39 (Joint Judgment) decided January 18, 2013

Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1687, 2013 Jeondo40 Decided April 25, 2013

June 13, 2013

All appeals filed by the defendant and the person subject to the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Part of the defendant's case

A. Summary of grounds for appeal

1) Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”);

The life imprisonment sentence sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(ii)a prosecutor;

The court below's sentence of imprisonment for life against the defendant, which is not the death penalty, is unfair because the sentence is too unfford.

B. Determination

1) As to the defendant's assertion

It is recognized that the Defendant did not plan in advance the crime of this case, but attempted rape against the victim by reporting the short half of the victim on the day of the crime of this case, and attempted to commit the crime of this case, and then, if the victim, who is well aware of the Defendant, was aware of the Defendant, he could be prevented from committing the crime of murder and concealment of the body. Rape against the victim was committed in a timely manner, and the Defendant made a confession of the crime of this case from the investigative agency to the court of this case, and his mistake was unfolded and reflected in depth.

① However, the crime of this case was committed by: (a) while living in neighbors, with the victim of 10 years old who was aware of that he had been living in his house; (b) intending to rape the victim by putting the victim's sexual organ in his house, making the victim prompt; (c) the victim scambling his body; and (d) scambling the victim's name with his body; (c) scambling the victim with his string by pressure; (d) scambling the victim's body with scambling the victim's body; and (e) putting the victim's body into maru, and buried the victim's body in a nearby mountain; (c) the victim's body was extremely poor in quality; and (d) the victim's body was extremely poor in terms of the content, means, and methods of the crime; and (d) the defendant's body was scambling with fear and fear of the victim's age in the course of the crime of this case; (d) the victim's body.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) As to the prosecutor’s assertion

Considering the fact that the death penalty is a very cold punishment that deprives human life of himself/herself of it, it is an extremely exceptional punishment that can be introduced by the dual judicial system in a marcing country, the death penalty should be granted only when there are objective circumstances to recognize it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of the punishment. Therefore, in sentencing death penalty, the death penalty shall be determined only after thoroughly considering all of the above special circumstances, including the offender’s age, occupation and experience, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of criminal records, relationship with the victim, motive for the crime, degree of preparation, means and method, degree of awareness of the result, degree of importance of the result, number of victims and appraisal of damage, the depth and attitude of the crime after the crime, whether there is any reflect or not, degree of damage recovery, and fear of recidivism (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do4365, Apr. 26, 2008). 203).

In light of the following circumstances, the lower court appears to have committed the crime of this case, i.e., ‘decision on the punishment of 3. Sentencing' and ‘the sentencing condition', i.e., the Defendant’s age, occupation and career, character and behavior, intelligence, education level, growth process, relationship with the victim, motive for the crime, method and method of the crime, the consequences of the crime, whether there is reflectivity, the degree of damage recovery, and fear of recidivism, and in particular, it appears that the Defendant committed the crime of this case without any sexual impulse, rather than having been planned in advance. ii) Even if it was used in the process of the crime of the crime of this case, it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant committed the crime of this case, which was sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually sexually criminal.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

2. Part on the case of request for attachment order

When the accused and the prosecutor filed an appeal against the accused and the accused and the prosecutor filed an appeal, they are deemed to have filed an appeal against the case claiming an attachment order pursuant to Article 9(8) of the former Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders (amended by Act No. 11558, Dec. 18, 2012; hereinafter “Electronic Monitoring Act”). However, the accused and the prosecutor did not submit specific grounds for appeal regarding the attachment order within the deadline for submitting the appellate brief, and even after examining the judgment of the court below, they did not find grounds for ex officio investigation and reversal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 35 of the Electronic Monitoring Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, judge and judicial police officer

Judges Han Han-Gyeong

Judges Park Jae-won