(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.4.8.선고 2016고합18 판결

The seized knife Nos. 1 (No. 1), Raz. 2 (Evidence No. 2), Mautel Paute No. 3 (Evidence No. 3), Cheongute No. 4 (Evidence No. 5), and Maute No. 5 (Evidence No. 5) shall be confiscated.

Reasons

Criminal facts

【Criminal Conductor】

From around 202, the Defendant believed that there was a gold leader equivalent to the number of trillion won that Japanese military had been deprived of when the Defendant was her pro-friendly C, together with a pro-friendly C, in the underground excavation in the Southern-gu Busan metropolitan area D, but did not discover it, but did not seem to have been sentenced by the above C to the punishment for the suspicion of receiving the money from investors by means of the gold tampion, and the Defendant was thought to have immediately deducted the gold tamp from E.

The defendant tried to ask for the investigation of the contents that the people in the surroundings did not believe their horses, and that the F Assembly member intrudes into the local office of F Assembly member's National Assembly member's National Assembly member's constituency due to E, thereby putting up a banner that "the F will take the character of his employees," and that "F would bring about the above gold leader."

【Criminal Facts】

1. Intrusion upon special buildings and injury by hostage;

On December 30, 2015, the Defendant discovered victim H (52 years of age) who is a special assistant inspector to work in the above office near the office located in the area of the second floor National Assembly member of G in Busan. On December 30, 2015, the Defendant opened a 20th floor office, stating that "D gold tamper F, i.e., he/she was detained, i., an office", and opened a 3th floor knife (33 cm in total length, 20 cm in knife: 10 knife knife knife 20 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k knife k knif k k.

피고인은 위와 같이 위험한 물건을 휴대하여 피해자 H의 사무실을 침입하고, H을 인질로 삼아 피해자 K에 대하여 의무 없는 일을 하게 하였으며 그 과정에서 H을 때려 H에게 치료일수를 알 수 없는 입술이 찢어져 아홉 바늘을 꿰맬 필요가 있는 상해를 가하였다.

2. Destruction and damage of special property;

From December 30, 2015, around 08:40 on the same day to 10:15 on the same day, the Defendant left the victim H as above, and damaged the said office’s windows, 10,000 won of the market price, and 10,000 won of the window owned by the victim.

3. Existing buildings and fire prevention reserve;

From around 08:40 on December 30, 2015 to around 10:15 on the same day, the Defendant left the victim He, as above, and spreaded him to the office floor and straws, etc. for the purpose of preventing the office to attract interest in the media, and putting him with the stringer, but the Defendant was not arrested by the police officers belonging to the Busan High Police Station, and was able to prevent the fire to the existing building.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of the accused in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each police statement made to H and I;

1. Each investigation report (the sequence 14, 20, 31, 33, 43 of the evidence list);

1. Written estimate;

1. Each photograph (victim's upper part photograph, each field photograph);

1. Images recorded in field video CDs;

1. Each existing space of the food blades seized (No. 1), Raut (No. 2), Gauta (No. 3), Gauta (No. 4), Mauta (No. 5);

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 324-3 and 324-2 of the Criminal Act (the point of injury by hostage, choice of limited term), Articles 320 and 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of entering a special structure), the main sentence of Article 175, Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of setting fire to existing buildings), Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act (the point of destroying and damaging special objects, the choice of imprisonment)

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment for Bodily Inflicting Bodily Inflicting Bodi Crimes) of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration for the reasons for sentencing):

1. Confiscation;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act; 1. The scope of punishment by law: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years and six months from June to June, 22 years and six months;

2. The scope of recommendations, and the crime of bodily injury;

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (Bodily Injury, etc. to Minors / Bodily Injury, etc.) where the body of the victim is infringed after the capture and inducement of human trafficking.

【Special Dangerous person] In the event of carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous object (Aggravated factor)

[Scope of Recommendation] Five years of imprisonment to 8 years of imprisonment (Aggravated Field)

(b)the sentencing criteria for the entry of special structures do not apply.

(c)the sentencing criteria do not apply to existing buildings and fire reserve offences;

(d) Crimes of destroying or damaging special property;

[Determination of Punishment] Form 1 (Habitual, Cumulative, Special Destruction, etc.) (The scope of Recommendation) / Imprisonment for 8 months or more from imprisonment for 1 year and 6 months (Basic Area)

E. Scope of recommending punishment according to the criteria for handling multiple crimes: A concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act is established between the crimes of entering a special structure for which the sentencing criteria have not been set for five or more years of imprisonment, and the crimes for entering a existing structure and a crime for preventing fire and the crimes for which the sentencing guidelines have not been set. As such, the lower limit of the sentencing criteria

3. Determination of sentence: In order to achieve the personal purpose of the defendant, the crime of the case of the case of the case of the 3-year period of imprisonment, i.e., the defendant entering the office of a local constituency for the National Assembly member, and causing bodily injury, and the nature and circumstances of the crime are very serious. The defendant's motive for the crime of the case of the 3-year period of imprisonment is difficult to understand, but even if there was a strong motive for the crime of the case of the defendant, it should have been resolved according to legitimate procedures, and it is not reasonable to regard the victim who is entirely irrelevant to the crime as hostage and cause bodily injury and to achieve the defendant's desired desire. In addition, considering the fact that the defendant tried to prepare in advance the knife, rater, tape, etc. and make preparations for the crime of the 1-year period of imprisonment, the victim wanting the punishment of the defendant, and the fact that various items are damaged, the sentence of sentence is inevitable for the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant has no criminal records or confessions as to the suspension of execution and the degree of injury to the victim is relatively less severe, etc., circumstances favorable to the defendant shall be considered, and the sentencing criteria shall be excluded from the sentencing criteria and the punishment shall be determined as the same as the disposition within the scope of the legal applicable sentencing range, taking into account various