Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant

Scargs

Attorney Park Ho-young et al.

Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Gohap14 Decided May 16, 2007

All judgment of the first instance court shall be reversed.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

The 59 days of detention before a judgment in the first instance is rendered shall be included in the above sentence against Defendant 1.

However, the execution of the above sentence against Defendant 1 shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

A sentence of punishment shall be suspended against Defendant 2.

1. Summary of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal

misunderstanding of facts (for profit and abduction) and unreasonable sentencing

2. Determination

Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal is examined ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal. In the trial of the court, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment to the effect that the Defendants’ name of the crime is “a minor abduction inducement” as “a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes”, “Article 5-2 (4) and Article 288 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes,” and “Article 287 of the Criminal Act” in the applicable provisions of the Act, “a person kidnapped victims for profit-making purposes,” and “a person kidnapped victims for profit-making purposes,” and the judgment of the court of the first instance was changed by the court’s permission so that

3. Conclusion

Therefore, according to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, all of the judgment of the first instance is reversed, and it is again decided as follows through pleading.

Defendant 2, as a relative of the victim Nonindicted 3 (Woo, 10 years of age), was one who lacks the ability or decision-making ability to discern things due to a mental disorder of Grade II due to a mental disorder of the body of the victim, and the wife Nonindicted 1 was involved in a traffic accident around June 12, 2004, and the victim 2 was living with Nonindicted 2, the head of which was the victim after the death on or around June 12, 2004. While Nonindicted 2 managed the traffic accident compensation, etc. of Defendant 2 and the network Nonindicted 1, he thought that he was flicking and abused himself, and through civil litigation, he was able to find the traffic accident compensation of Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonindicted 1 from Nonindicted 2, who was supported by Defendant 1, and was living independently from his wife, and the Defendants conspired with the Defendant to bring up the victim himself his own livelihood, while living independently;

around 1:30 on March 17, 2007, Defendant 1 established a passenger car in front of the Jeju Elementary School (vehicle number omitted) and discovered a victim who returns to the Republic of Korea after finishing a school course. Defendant 2 went to the rear seat of the vehicle, but the victim was discovered, the victim was her, and the victim was followed by the victim, and the victim was forced to go to go to go to the rear seat of the above vehicle, and the victim was forced to go to go to go to the rear seat of the vehicle, and the victim was forced to go to go to go to the front seat of the above vehicle, and then the victim was informed of the victim on his own house located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon at around 13:30 on the same day. At around 15:50 on the same day, 10 on the day, 7:50 on the day after the date on which the victim was detained, and 1:7:0 on the day after the date on which the victim was found to go to be the victim's school of the Seo-dong.

1. Defendants’ partial statement

1. Legal statement of the witness in the first instance court of Nonindicted 4

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each police statement on Nonindicted 3, 5, and 6

1. Seizure records;

1. A copy of written request for physical examination;

1. A copy of a disability diagnosis certificate;

1. A copy of the amount to be received in total by sea;

1. Photographs explanation;

1. Copy of family register;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 287 and 30 of the Criminal Code

1. Statutory mitigation (Defendant 2);

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 62 (1) of each Criminal Code (Defendant 22)

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 1);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence (Defendant 2);

Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Act (Suspension of Sentence: Imprisonment with prison labor for four months)

Although the victim is the father of the defendant 2, the act of the defendants, who did not leave the previous house and forced the victim who did not think of his father, forced the victim to leave the house and did not return to the house near a day after he went into the house, shall be subject to criticism in light of the shock of the victims suffered by him.

However, the main purpose of the Defendants, which is not forced the victims, is not because of the Defendants’ private economic interests, but rather because of Defendant 2’s personal economic interests, such as criminal facts, and it appears that Defendant 2 had obtained the help of Defendant 1 and had been living independently from Defendant 2, and had been bringing up the victims of sexual intercourse with their own care and living (in this regard, the prosecutor changed the indictment from the “inducing for profit” to the “inducing of minor abduction” in the “induction for profit”). The Defendants, without preparing particular measures for fostering, forced the victims to go against Nonindicted 2 and forced them to go up with their objections and reflects on the part of Nonindicted 2, and thus refusing to go up with the intention of bringing up the victims. However, even though Defendant 2 is doubted about having practical ability to take care of the victims, the crime of this case committed from the belief that Defendant 2 had the right to bring up the victims by his father, cannot be said to have been treated unfairly by Defendant 2, etc. by comparing the type of the crime of abduction by a minor.

Considering such circumstances, taking into account various circumstances as the Defendants’ age, criminal record, and relationship between Defendant 2 and Nonindicted 2, it is desirable to focus on resolving the disputes, such as the final reversion and management issues of the compensation for traffic accidents by Defendant 2 and the deceased Nonindicted 1, and the bringing-up relationship to the victims, etc. through the dispute resolution procedure related to the civil and household affairs in this case. It is not somewhat harsh to deal with the Defendants’ charges of the instant crime. For the same reason, the sentence of imprisonment is suspended with respect to Defendant 2, and the execution of imprisonment with respect to Defendant 1 is suspended for six months.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Kim Sang-sung (Presiding Judge)