2018False 654 Attempted Crime, Special Bodily Injury, Special Property Destruction and Damage

A

Maternist (prosecution), type of punishment, tent, and Western Democratic (Public Trial)

Law Firm Dodam (Attorney Kim Nam-ju)

Law Firm Woo-man (Attorney in charge)

Attorney Park Hyun-tae, Lee Jong-sung, Lee Jong-soo, Sho, Sho-hee

September 6, 2018

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

Seized evidence subparagraph 1 shall be forfeited from the accused.

Criminal 1)

(Basic Facts)

From May 209, the Defendant leased a commercial building in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and operated a restaurant with “C’s trade name.” On January 7, 2016, the victim D (the age of 60) sought to renew the lease contract with the victim D and the instant store after acquiring the ownership of the instant building, but the lease contract was terminated on May 20, 2016 due to differences in the terms and conditions of lease.

However, the Defendant refused to leave the store of this case on the ground that the victim D excessively demanded the increase of rent and caused significant damage, such as the failure to recover the premium, etc. The victim D also filed a lawsuit for the name of the building and attempted compulsory execution several times from October 2017, but failed due to the conflict with the Defendant.

During the foregoing process, the Defendant filed a criminal complaint with the victim D, and conducted a demonstration before the victim D’s residence, etc., the victim D and the appraiser were subject to compulsory execution against the building of this case on June 4, 2018, and the victim D had been engaged in an unexpected appraisal against the victim D. On the date of the occurrence of the instant case (on June 7, 2018), the Defendant attempted to kill the victim D with D by driving the EF Engine in order to conduct a demonstration before the victim D’s residence on the date of the instant case (on June 7, 2018), while moving the EF Engine in order to conduct a demonstration before the victim D’s residence.

Criminal facts

1. Special injury to the victim F;

On June 7, 2018, at around 08:20, the Defendant: (a) parked in the vicinity of the D’s residence, which is a dangerous thing; (b) parked in the front of the D’s residence; (c) moved to the D’s workplace and move to the D’s workplace; (d) parked in the “00 building located in Gangnam-gu Seoul, and entered the said building; and (d) parked in the surrounding area and parked in the said building; and (e) parked in the said building, D immediately gets on board the said building; (b) obstructed the behind the D’s passenger car, which is a dangerous thing that D was prepared in advance, and then, (e) taken out the h’s seat ( approximately 39cc in length, KRW 1cm in diameter, 1.4m in diameter, and 1.4km in Seoul; and (e) taken out the h’s escape or approach to the said building from Gangnam-gu Seoul, but (e) discovered it.

At around 08:22 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) boarded a rocketing car; (b) was flicked at the entrance of the said IBD parking lot; (c) had the victim F (e.g., aged 58) who was going next to the Defendant her body in the air; (d) had the victim F (age 58) cut off on the floor after her body. Accordingly, the Defendant carried dangerous articles and tried to inflict injury on D; and (c) had the victim F, who had to receive approximately twelve weeks medical treatment, inflicted injury, such as the pelle and closed down of the vert L1st part, which requires approximately twelve weeks medical treatment. (c)

2. Special injury to victims D;

As stated in Paragraph 1, the Defendant 1, using the soft car, kid against the victim D, but did not directly shock the victim D, and the victim D was able to immediately drive away from the above rocketing car as stated in Paragraph 1, and immediately Had the victim Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Ha, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had Had

On the other hand, the defendant continued to break away with the victim D, and continued to drive away from the floor, and in the vicinity of the "N" store in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul, the victim D's head toward the victim D's head, attached the victim D who prevented him/her from fighting, went beyond the floor, and then released the victim D's head and face on several occasions, and arrested the police officer who was called on the part of the victim D's body with his/her head and face.

As a result, the Defendant carried dangerous things and inflicted injury on the victim D, which requires approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, such as the cutting of saves and saves of saves, and the two openings and openings requiring medical treatment.

3. Destruction and damage of special property; and

On June 7, 2018, around 08:22, the Defendant: (a) driven a rocketing car, which is a dangerous object, such as as set forth in paragraph (1), and was parked at the entrance of the parking lot, and received a PHS car owned by the victim0 corporation, which was parked at the entrance of the parking lot. Accordingly, the Defendant destroyed the said NAS car by using a car, which is a dangerous object, with a view to the amounting to KRW 8,287,618.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of F;

1. Each legal statement of the defendant and D;

1. The prosecutor's protocol of self-examination of the accused by each prosecutor's office against the accused (the third 7th th th th th 7th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th th

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Each written statement of the defendant and Qua

1. Police seizure records;

1. Certificates of medical certificates, respective medical certificates of D and F, replys to request the delivery of documents by R Hospital, and copies of medical records;

1. Written estimate of the cost of underwriting the insurance;

1. On-site photographs and reports on the results of field identification;

1. One CD (for example CCTV images and victim’s statement images);

1. In the investigation report(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(

1. Notice of the results of video appraisal - Notice of the results of video appraisal -CCTV image/reshot video files DVD, - Image improvement and file CDs for the improvement of the quality;

1. Requests for appraisal;

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 258-2(1) and 257(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing damage to property and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the penalty and penalty shall be the most severe penalty)

1. Confiscation;

Judgment on the assertion by the defendant (defense counsel) under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant’s intentional injury to D is merely a cause of the result of the victim’s injury while he did not see the victim F, who was on the side of D with the intent to inflict an injury on D, by intentionally neglecting D with the vehicle, and caused the result of the victim’s injury. The Defendant’s intentional injury cannot be converted to the victim’s intentional injury, but can only be at issue only with the injury by negligence.

2. Determination

As long as the Defendant intentionally driven a vehicle into which a person was injured, even if the person who was injured was not a victim of the purpose of the Defendant, and the Defendant did not properly recognize whether the victim was at the scene, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have interfered with the recognition of the intent of the injury to the victim. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period from one year to 15 years;

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

(a) Basic crime: The crime of special injury under paragraph (2) in judgment;

[Determination of Type 1 (General Bodily Injury)4] General injury caused by violence

[Special Aggravation] Reduction element: Where the victim is also responsible for the occurrence of a crime or the expansion of damage, an aggravated element: Where the victim was committed with a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles;

injury, or criticism, the motive for the

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Special Priority, 6 months to 3 years of imprisonment

(b) Second crime: A crime of special injury under paragraph (1) in judgment;

[Determination of Type 1] General Injury to Violence (General Injury)

[Special Emotionals] Mitigations: In cases where a person commits an intentional bodily injury, Aggravations: Where a person commits a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles, serious injury;

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravating area, 6-6 months to 2 years. A third crime: A crime of destroying and damaging special objects.

[Determination of Punishment] Type 1 (Habitual, Cumulative, Special Destruction, etc.) of the Special Destruction and Damage of Habitual and Cumulative Offense

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, Imprisonment of 8 months to 1 year and 6 months

(d) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: One to four years and six months [in the case of concurrent crimes with three or more years of imprisonment, the upper limit of the range of sentence for the second crime shall be added to the upper limit of the range of sentence for the third crime (one year), and one-third (6 months) of the upper limit of the range of sentence for the third crime, and the lower limit shall comply with the lower limit of the statutory penalty for the crime of special injury (one year of imprisonment)];

3. Determination of sentence: Determination of sentence shall take into account the following circumstances in imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months and taking into account the defendant's age, character and conduct, development process, environment, motive, means and result of the crime, various factors of sentencing as shown in the arguments in this case, such as the circumstances after the crime, and the scope of recommended sentences in sentencing guidelines as ordered.

0 Unfavorable Circumstances

피고인이 피해자 D를 향해 승용차로 돌진하거나 쇠망치로 피해자 D를 향해 수차례 휘두르는 등 위험한 결과가 발생할 수 있는 범행도구를 사용하였다. 도망가는 피해자 D를 계속 뒤쫓아 가 쇠망치를 던져 몸에 맞게 하고 폭행 과정에서 피해자 D의 머리를 땅에 찧고 양발로 짓밟기까지 하는 등 적지 않은 폭력을 행사하였다. 승용차로 돌진하는 과정에서 주변에 있던 피해자 F을 들이받고도 다친 사람이 있는지 확인하거나 아무런 구호조치도 취하지 않은 채 차에서 내리자마자 곧바로 피해자 D를 뒤쫓기만 했다.

The victims D and F suffered injuries are serious injuries in need of medical treatment for 12 weeks, and there is a high possibility that they will suffer aftermath disability by diversified important parts, such as spine and ebrates. Among the victims, no agreement has been reached with the victims, and in particular, with respect to the victims D, they appear to have a view that their actions are legitimate by keeping their intent to continue the dispute.

○ favorable circumstances

The Defendant generally recognizes facts, and shows an attitude to reflect in depth on the occurrence of injury to the Victim F. The Defendant appears to have had a very bad appraisal due to a long dispute with the Victim D, and caused the instant crime by contingency in a state where he was satisfed due to the currency with the victim D immediately before the instant case. From 1982 to 1988, the Defendant was sentenced to a fine not exceeding five times due to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act during the period of 1982 and one time due to a violation of the same Act in 2000, and there was no specific criminal record other than a fine not exceeding one million won due to a dispute over the instant store, which was sentenced to a crime of assault in 2017.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

(a) Attempted murder with respect to the victim F;

The Defendant, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the crime in the judgment, flauncing off D with a rocketing car for the purpose of murdering D with D as indicated in paragraph (1) of the same Article. However, the Defendant received victim F, who was next to the Defendant, from the victim F, who was in need of approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment, and did not commit an attempted act but did not result in the Defendant’s injury, such as the frame, closure, etc. of parts 1 in spine L1.

(b) Attempts to murder victims D;

As stated in the facts of the crime in the judgment below, the Defendant tried to kill the victim D with the victim's vehicle strawing by sudden speeding the victim D and hacking the hacks, etc. However, the Defendant did not commit an attempted crime, even though the victim's strong resistance to the victim D, which was in need of approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment and approximately 3 weeks of medical treatment, but did not commit an attempted crime.

2. Determination

이 사건 점포에 관한 임대차계약과 관련하여 피해자 D는 피고인을 상대로 제기한 건물명도소송에서 승소한 후 2017. 10.경부터 여러 차례 강제집행을 시도하였으나 피고인 및 피고인을 돕는 시민단체 사람들의 저항으로 실패하였고, 그 과정에서 상호 형사고소를 하고 피고인은 피해자 D의 주거지 앞에서 시위를 하는 등 서로 극심한 감정적 대립상태에 있었던 사실, 2017. 11. 9. 강제집행 당시 피고인이 약 4주간의 치료가 필요한 왼손 제2 내지 5 손가락 불완전절단 및 좌열창을 입기도 한 사실, 2018. 6. 4. 이 사건 점포에 관한 최종 강제집행이 있고 난 뒤에도 피고인은 피해자 D의 주거지 앞에서 시위를 하였고, 그 무렵부터 이 사건 발생 당일까지 피고인과 피해자 D는 서로를 비난하거나 모욕하며 수십 차례 문자메시지 등을 주고받았으며, 이 사건 발생 당일 오전 7시경에도 피고인과 피해자 D는 50분간 통화를 하며 감정을 자극하는 대화를 나눴던 사실, 사건 발생 5일쯤 전에 이에프 쏘나타 차량 트렁크에 있던 쇠망치를 차량 조수석에 갖다둔 사실, 피고인이 쇠망치로 피해자 D의 머리 부분을 향하여 여러 번 휘둘렀던 사실 등은 인정된다. 그러나 다음과 같은 사정들에 비추어 보면, 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인이 피해자 D를 다치게 할 의도로 이에프 쏘나타 승용차로 돌진하거나 쇠망치를 피해자에게 휘두르는 등으로 상해를 가한 것에서 더 나아가 피해자 D를 살해하려는 고의가 있었다는 점이 합리적 의심의 여지 없이 증명되었다고 보기에는 부족하다.

① The crime time of this case was 8:20 p.m. at around 8:20 p.m., and the place of crime was set up in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongdam-dong, Seoul, and a shopping mall-populated areas. There were many CCTVs in the area where there was no personal data. In fact, there were many people other than the victim F in the Dora parking lot in which the case occurred, and the victim D was able to escape.

② The victim D was in the situation where the Defendant’s shouldered and continued her shouldered with his hand and arms, and when considering the weight of the network value, etc., the Defendant was faced with serious injuries if the Defendant prices the head of the victim D properly, or the victim’s head was in the two openings where approximately three weeks of treatment is required. In light of CCTV images, it is confirmed that the Defendant’s head was faced with the victim D and the victim’s head was faced with the victim D, but it is not confirmed that the Defendant lost balance, but the shape of the Victim D was not verified, and that it was difficult to readily display the net in the direction that the Defendant was able to be considered as an adult male sex with 1,46km, and that it was difficult to conclude that the Defendant’s head was seriously damaged to the victim’s net beyond the degree that the Defendant was faced with D while driving the victim’s head.

③ Considering the fact that the Defendant’s car driven by the Defendant was short at the time of shocking the Victim F, the maximum speed is limited to 21km/h, and the victim D did not receive a direct price from the rocketing and other automobiles by avoiding the rocketing and the Defendant’s car seems to face with the Victim D when intending to obtain the Victim D by using the rocketing or other car, it would be difficult to conclude that the Defendant recognized the possibility of death even at the time when intending to obtain the Victim D with the rocketing and other car.

④ The Defendant, before N burial, committed an act of putting the victim DNA head on the part of the victim DNA by breaking up the victim DNA and breaking up the victim DNA head. However, the Defendant did not actively seek and attempt to recover the victim DNA and did not commit any aggressive act against the victim DNA. The victim DNA stated that the victim DNA was in the face of the victim’s body while going beyond this court, but was not in the face of the victim’s boom or seriously damaged the victim’s face. In light of the CCTV screen, even if the Defendant at the time when the CCTV was used to assault the victim DNA, it is not likely that the degree of satis would not have been satisfe even if the victim was in line with this court.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, inasmuch as this part of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus a not-guilty verdict is to be pronounced pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, but as the defendant is found guilty of a special injury crime under Article 1 and 2 of the same Act within the scope of the

Opinions on jury verdict and sentencing (seven jury opinions)

1. Results of a verdict of guilt or innocence;

A. Paragraph 1 of the holding

(1) Crimes of murder and attempted murder

- Not guilty: Seven jurors (many).

(b) "A person guilty of an injury by special injury": Seven jurors (many).

B. Paragraph 2 of the holding

(1) Crimes of murder and attempted murder

- Not guilty: Seven jurors (many).

(ii)a special injury (influence).

- "guilty": Seven jurors (many).

C. Crimes of special property damage under paragraph (3) of the judgment

m. "guilty": Seven jurors (many).

2. Opinion on sentencing: All negative opinions about the suspended sentence.

- Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months: One juror;

- Two years of imprisonment: Three jurors;

- One year of imprisonment: It is so decided as per Disposition through a participatory trial at the defendant's wishes, for not less than three jurors.

The presiding judge; and

Awards and Decorations for Judges

Judges Lee Jong-deok

1) Since part of the facts charged in the instant case which judged not guilty is insufficient to prove among the specific facts, the Defendant’s right to defense is insufficient.

To the extent that it does not disadvantage the exercise, part of the facts charged was revised.

2) In the case of concurrent inspection, the first part of the murder charge was charged, but the charge of attempted murder was not guilty, and as seen thereafter, the special fact that reduced.

Paragraph 2 of the same Article shall also apply to the crime of injury.

3) A concurrent bid entered this part of the facts charged originally into “an injury requiring medical treatment for 20 weeks” but on August 23, 2018, a medical treatment for 12 weeks as above is written.

A request for amendments to Bill of Indictment was made to the effect that it is necessary to change to ‘the injury', and this Court permitted it on August 23, 2018.

4) The sentencing criteria for the crime of special injury under Article 258-2 of the Criminal Act are the type of "special injury resulting from repeated injury" from the case prosecuted after August 15, 2018.

The previous indictment case is subject to the sentencing guidelines of "general injury" type. This is also the special injury crime of paragraph (1) of the judgment.