2020Mada12 Murder, thieves, theft, bodily damage, dead body abandonment

Defendant Kim, 47-years, South, and North

Residential Ulsan

Park Jong-sung (Court) (Court of Justice) (Court of Justice) (Court of Justice)

Law Firm (LLC)

Attorney Sung-*

August 18, 2020

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

Seized evidence 6 through 12 shall be confiscated, respectively.

Criminal History Office

1. homicide;

On November 1, 2019, at the defendant's house located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, the defendant met the victim's ○○○ (n, 54 years of age) who was engaged in sexual intercourse activities, and then continuously sent or called the victim a letter to the victim, and made efforts to obtain the victim's senscence by paying the victim a money under the name of lag or memorial expenses. However, the victim's response did not reach the defendant's expectation, so the victim's senscence was gathered to the victim, as the response did not reach the defendant's expectation.

On December 18, 2019, at the above defendant's house, the defendant sent letters and notes to the effect that "I am together with the defendant's cell phone with the victim's cell phone term" at the above defendant's house, and on December 19, 2019, the following day, from the victim who arrived at the defendant's house at the victim's house at around 11:31, 201, the victim attempted to leave her house in Gangwon-do and 2 million won at the expense." At around 12:06 on the same day, the victim's body and the victim's body were 1 million won to return to the defendant's bank located near the defendant's house, and the victim's body and the victim's body were 1 million won to return to the victim's house, and the victim's body and the victim's body were able to return her money to her for 1 million won only after the victim's death."

Accordingly, the Defendant murdered the victim.

2. Larceny;

The Defendant brought KRW 1 million, a cash owned by the victim away from the floor in the process of responding to and disputing the bank of the victim and the victim, at the same location as the above paragraph (1). Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the property of the victim.

3. Destruction and damage of carcasses;

On December 20, 2019, the Defendant: (a) destroyed the body of the said victim at the home of the said Defendant; and (b) destroyed the body of the said victim; and (c) abandoned the victim’s body at a dial place.

According to the above plan, the defendant prepared a large plastic paper, hacksaw (kack 20cm, 18cm in length on one day), hacksaw (total 40cm in length), excessive (kack 11cm in length, 12cm in length on one day), hacks (total 22cm in length), hacks), hacks (total 22cm in length), hacks, gress, etc. at the floor of the above defendant's house, put the body of the victim on the floor of the above plastic paper, put the victim's body on the wall, cut the victim's body using the above hacks, cut off the victim's body to 7 parts in total, such as both arms, legs, dubs, chests, and heads.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the body of the victim.

4. Abandonment of a dead body.

At the same location as above in paragraph (3) of the above Article, the defendant divided the chest part of the victim's body into one paper stuff, one head and left-hand bridge part into four paper stuffs, one paper stuffing part of both arms and one body part, and one paper stuffing part into one paper stuffing part, and the above gate, the victim's clothes, etc. used when the victim's body is damaged, together with the victim's body at the end of 2:05 day before the above defendant's house, and at the end of 2:05 day after the above 2:21 day after the above 2:21 day after the date when the victim's body was damaged, the defendant loaded two paper stuffing part of a paper stuffing part of the body of the victim's body in the middle of ○○ operation, and at the end of 2:21 day after the date when the victim's body was loaded in the middle of 20 string of the above 2nd string of the above 2nd string.

Accordingly, the defendant abandons the body of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each protocol of seizure and list of seizure (Evidence Nos. 12, 13, 41, 42);

1. On the spot of corpse discovery, body photographs, fingerprints verification, organization of lists at the scene of the corpse abandonment, images, such as a suspect's residence form and reaction of blood trace, etc., on-site identification reports, site identification reports, requests for an appraisal of genes of evidence, investigation reports (where the victim's body was used at the time of damage to the victim's body), photographs of the scene of seizure, copies of the body autopsy, details of the account transaction [fag], investigation report [faging of dead body], investigation report (verification of dead body abandonment], results of appraisal, response report (verification of CCTVs, such as withdrawal of cash by the victim at the time of committing the crime);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the homicide, the choice of limited imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the thief and the choice of imprisonment), Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (the damage of a corpse and the occupation of abandonment of a corpse)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes of homicide with the largest punishment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act / [Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act / [Article 48(1)1 through (5) of the Criminal Act shall also be confiscated for a person who was suffering by the defendant at the time of committing the crime, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the person falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 48(1) of the Criminal Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus,

1. Summary of the assertion

The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant suffered from the Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime was in a state of mental disability or loss.

2. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the fact that the defendant was suffering in the second part before Vietnam on February 1969, and was diagnosed with a detailed brain explosion around 2000 and received medical treatment from around 2010 is recognized. However, the Ministry of Justice's mental diagnosis of the defendant is "(1) The Ministry of Justice's mental health examination of the defendant," 1) the left-hand low-speed and chronic stimulssis in the upper brain, and the chronic stimulssis are observed, but this is not related to the defendant's brain stimulssis and has no mental disorder. ② The consciousness of the defendant is well-known, and there is no mental diagnosis that could be identified as the defendant. ③ The defendant is presumed to have no obstacle to decision-making ability and ability of decision-making ability of the defendant at the time of the crime of this case, and there is no motive or motive to examine the defendant's mental condition similar to that of the defendant at the time of the crime of this case.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 45 years;

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

(a) First offense;

[Determination of Punishment] homicide [Type 2] Ordinary homicide

[Special Aggravations] Aggravations: Destruction of a dead body

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 15 years of imprisonment or more,

(b) Second crimes;

[Determination of Punishment] thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thief thalf thalf thalf thalf

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 4 months to 8 months. The scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years to life (the upper limit of crime 1 + the upper limit of crime 1/2)

(d) Scope of recommended sentences revised by applicable sentences: 15 years to 45 years (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentences).

3. Determination of sentence: The crime of this case with 25 years of imprisonment seems to have been committed by the Defendant to kill the victim, and to have committed a cruel crime by cutting the body, using hacksaws, etc., with very heavy results, and the method of the crime is cruel. In particular, the Defendant left the body in seven parts only after the lapse of at least one day from the time of killing the victim, and left the body in the house where human resources were planned to be redevelopmentd by dividing it into a subsequent stuff. In light of the Defendant’s behavior, the Defendant did not damage the body in the process of murdering the victim, but did not harm the body in a state where her body was lost due to the shock of appraisal in the process of killing the victim. The Defendant changed to the purport that the Defendant’s family member was against the recognition of his/her own crime, but the Defendant’s family member did not have any doubt about whether the Defendant’s family member was able to repent his/her behavior with the truth, and even if his/her bereaved family member did not have any effort to do so.

However, rather than having been planned from the beginning, the Defendant appears to have murdered with the victim in the process of punishing the victim, and the Defendant appears to have been virtually isolated from society for a long time without his family. Such wife may act as a factor of the instant crime, there is room for the Defendant to have served as a factor of the instant crime, the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding the fine, and the Defendant has no record of punishment exceeding 70 years old, considering the circumstances favorable to the Defendant, and other factors of sentencing as shown in the instant argument, such as character and behavior, environment, relationship with the victim, the background, means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., shall be determined as the same as the order.

The presiding judge, judge, Dong-gu

Judges South-Nam-tae.

Judges Han Young-young