2018No22 homicide or attempted murder

A

Defendant

Maintenance heat (prosecution), gambling (public trial)

Law Firm Baruns

Attorney in charge

Ulsan District Court Decision 2017Gohap219 Decided December 8, 2017

May 30, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for thirty-five years.

A seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

Unfair sentencing: The court below's sentence ( Imprisonment with prison labor) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

The life of a person is valuable and dignity without changing what it is. Each of the crimes of this case is committed in a tourist hotel operated by the defendant. It is clear that the result of each of the crimes of this case is too harsh and is an anti-human crime that can not be rationalizingd for any reason regardless of the crime, because the defendant was working in a tourist hotel operated by the defendant, and the defendant neglected and insultd the knife and the knife of the victim scened knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k

The court below held that the murder of this case constitutes "a planned murder (Preparation and Possession of homicide), a special person under the sentencing guidelines," and held that ① the defendant prepared to commit the crime in advance, followed knife knife knife and knife knife knife, etc., and the victims did not carry a tool to threaten the defendant at the time, the victims showed that the method of crime was very cruel and interview, ② the victims were lost due to extreme pain and extreme fear, ② their bereaved family members were lost in order of victims, and their bereaved family members were injured, ③ the defendant did not make efforts to correct the pain of bereaved family members, ③ the defendant did not suffer from the harm of bereaved family members, ③ the defendant did not have any doubt that his bereaved family members were subject to unfair treatment from the victims, ④ the defendant was sentenced to the punishment of the victims, ④ the victim's bereaved family members, and the defendant did not have any doubt that he was subject to unfair treatment from the victims.

However, according to the records, although the defendant purchased 2 knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and water before the crime of this case, and the knife was used for the crime of this case, it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant prepared to commit the crime of this case solely on such circumstances. Rather, according to the records, the defendant did not have to have prepared to commit the crime of this case for the crime of this case when knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, knife, and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife.

In addition, the Defendant is the first offender who had no record of criminal punishment prior to the instant case. The Defendant wanted to take the Defendant’s wife. There was a monetary problem between the Defendant and the victims, and it may be deemed that the Defendant’s public sale of the victims of early childhood, and the somewhat fluorous behavior of the Matern police did not affect the Defendant’s act.

In full view of all the various kinds of conditions indicated in the arguments and records of the instant case, including the scope of the right type in the sentencing guidelines, Defendant’s age, character, character and conduct, environment, relationship with victims, age, means, means, and consequence of the instant crime, which are acknowledged by the lower court, including these various circumstances, under the premise that the lower court has mistakenly assessed the instant crime by causing murder in a planned manner, the sentence that applied the scope of the recommended sentencing guidelines, which is difficult to apply to the instant case, is unfair compared to the extent of Defendant’s responsibility, by taking into account the different circumstances that are unfavorable to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is justified.

3. Conclusion

Since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and the judgment shall be rendered again as follows.

[Grounds for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The records of the judgment below are as follows.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (public sale by the victim, murdering on Doo-style, Selection of Organic Punishment) and Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Attempted Crime, Selection of Imprisonment)

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the gravity of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the crime of murder against a person who has suffered the largest damage)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than five years nor more than 45 years;

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

(a) Crimes of paragraphs 1 through 2: homicide; and

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 2 (Murder with Ordinary homicide) Basic Area (10 to 16 years)

【Special Convicted Persons】

None

(b) Third offense: homicide; and

【Scope of Recommendation】

Type 2 (Murder with Ordinary homicide) Aggravation (for not less than five years, for not less than twenty years, or for life)

* descriptive criteria: Lowest limit of the range of punishment for attempted murder (the crime of attempted murder is a crime of attempted murder).

1/3, maximum mitigation to 2/3, respectively)

【Special Discretionary Persons】

In the case of serious injury-Attempted injury:

(c) Handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten years to imprisonment for life.

3. Determination of sentence;

In full view of the above various sentencing conditions, the punishment as set forth in the Disposition is determined.

New Eastern Constitution (Presiding Judge)

Kim Jong-su

Freshion