[1] The elements for a sentence of death penalty to be permitted

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the sentencing of death penalty is extremely unfair in light of the following: (a) in a case where three young male and female were killed and abandoned for more than three times during a six-year period without any special reason, there is room for the correction of edification by the defendant; (b) the crime was caused by contingent impulse; and (c) the two preceding crimes were led to an investigation by themselves during the course of the investigation into the last crime

[1] Although our law has the death penalty system, since the death penalty is the last punishment to deprive a person of his/her concealment, the sentence of the death penalty can be allowed only when there are special circumstances that could justify it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of the punishment. Thus, in sentencing the death penalty, special circumstances should be clearly stated as above, such as the offender's age, occupation and career, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of criminal records, motive for the crime, existence of advance plan, degree of preparation, means and method, remaining and bad degree, seriousness of the result, number of victims and damage assessment, the depth and attitude after the crime, the degree of reflection and attitude after the crime, the possibility of recidivism, etc.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the sentencing of death penalty is extremely unfair in light of the following: (a) in a case where three young male and female were killed and abandoned for more than three times during a six-year period without any special reason, there is room for the correction of edification by the defendant; (b) the crime was caused by contingent impulse; and (c) the two preceding crimes were led to an investigation by themselves during the course of the investigation into the last crime; and (d) the punishment of

[1] Articles 41 and 51 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 41 and 51 of the Criminal Act; Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do926 delivered on June 11, 1985 (Gong1985, 1038), Supreme Court Decision 87Do1240 delivered on October 13, 1987 (Gong1987, 1742), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1086 delivered on August 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2709), Supreme Court Decision 94Do2662 delivered on January 13, 1995 (Gong195, 940), Supreme Court Decision 98Do305 delivered on May 12, 1998

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Final White

Seoul High Court Decision 2000No61 delivered on March 23, 2000

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

In relation to the three-time murder in this case, the court below held that, after the lapse of two years from the date of the murder, young men and women were killed by the method of gathering one victim 1 from the sea. After the lapse of two years from the murder, the body of the victim 2 from female-friendly arrest victim 2 was transferred to the unfolded place, the body of the victim 3 who was aware of usual 4 years from the death, raped the victim 3 from the sweet and sweeted the body of the victim, moved the body into the sweet to the sweet of Ynam-gun, the body of the victim 21 years to the sweetsan of the sweak-gun of the sweet. As such, the court below held that, even after the first two victims were under the age of fully aware of the human life dignity and value at the age of 27 years, the court below did not swelded or murder the victim's body, or did not swel the victim's body, and did not s netly commit the crime.

However, our law has the death penalty system, but since the death penalty is the last punishment to deprive a person's timber, the sentence of the death penalty is permissible only when there are special circumstances that could justify it in light of the degree of responsibility for the crime and the purpose of the punishment. Therefore, in sentencing the death penalty, it should be clearly stated that the above special circumstances exist in light of all the following factors, such as the offender's age, occupation and career, character and behavior, intelligence, education degree, growth process, family relation, existence of criminal records, motive for the crime, existence of advance plan, the degree of preparation, means and method, remaining and bad degree, importance of the result, number of victims and the appraisal of damage, the depth and attitude after the crime, the degree of reflection and attitude after the crime, the possibility of recidivism, and the possibility of recidivism.

In this case, the defendant was sentenced to death penalty on March 15, 1972 at the time of committing the crime of this case on the age of 21 to 27, the young age at the time of committing the crime of this case on December 11, 1992, and one year of suspended execution, and two years of imprisonment with prison labor on January 13, 195 and May 28, 1996 as violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act on May 28, 1996, and there was no particular criminal punishment prior to committing the crime of this case, and it was difficult for the court below to see that the defendant was sentenced to death penalty on his own at the time of committing the crime of this case on the age of 21 to the age of 27, and it was hard to view that the defendant had been sentenced to death penalty on his own in light of the fact that the defendant had not yet been sentenced to punishment on his own during the crime of this case on the age of 3 years of elementary school, and that he did not have any other reasons such as the victim's age of criminal investigation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)