2020Attempted murder, existing building or fire-prevention (a recognized crime, name, existing building, fire-prevention, etc.)

A

At the port of trial (prosecution, public trial), and luteia (public trial)

Attorney Ansan-gu (Korean National Assembly)

Attorney Choi Bo-sung (Korean)

June 15, 2020

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

One copy (Evidence No. 1), two plastic copies (L. 2), and one copy (Evidence No. 3) shall be confiscated from the accused.

Criminal facts

From September 1, 2015, the Defendant is a member of the C Association located in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as the "C Association") in Mapo-gu.

Defendant filed a complaint from a union on several occasions due to obstruction of business, occupational embezzlement, etc., and was investigated and tried by the National Labor Relations Commission. The Defendant filed a complaint with the National Labor Relations Commission after receiving a disposition of suspension of work on board, and requested the union to withdraw the case of complaint and pay retirement allowances. However, the Defendant responded that the Defendant received wages in advance from the directors of the union, and the Defendant could not give retirement benefits and withdraw the complaint. In addition, on January 22, 2020, the Defendant again filed a complaint due to occupational embezzlement on the ground that he did not deposit taxi commissions on the part of the union, and the victim D (the age of 57) was aware that he stated as the complainant, and was able to kill the directors of the union who will find it at night in the office of the union, and to murder the directors of the association who will work on duty.

around 2020, 01:25 around March 29, 201: (a) the Defendant stored two convalers (one liter each), which was prepared in advance, in the three-dimensional room of the above union, in the vicinity of the C Association located in Mapo-gu Seoul, Seoul, and entered the three-dimensional room of the union.

The defendant spreaded the victim who was seated in the front room of the ship, and added the victim's body to the body of the victim by putting the victim in a stringer of the defendant's bar, and moved the victim's body into the body of the victim. The defendant laid the inside of the office by getting the string association's office wall, floor, etc.

As a result, the Defendant destroyed the existing structure of the victim, and caused the death of the victim by using 60% of the chlorate image show at the F Hospital located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E around April 16, 2020.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement of G and H;

1. On-site identification reports, on-site photographs, and comprehensive reports on fire occurrence;

1. Seizure protocol (No. 15 No. Serials of Evidence list);

1. CCTV photographs and CDs at the scene of the crime;

1. A medical certificate;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report internal death (a death certificate issued by I);

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

The latter part of Article 164(2) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to 7 years;

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

[Determination of Punishment] Fire-Fighting Crime

【Special Exemplarys ] Reduction Elements: Self-denunciation 1)

Aggravations: Cruel Crime Acceptance Act

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

【Scope of Recommendations as amended in accordance with the applicable sentence】

From 15 to 30 years of imprisonment (in case that the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing criteria is inconsistent with the upper limit of the applicable sentences in law, it shall be in accordance with the upper limit of the applicable sentences in law).

3. Determination of sentence;

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that he voluntarily attended the investigation agency late later is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, since human life has an absolute nature that can not be disposed of without permission and it is impossible to recover damage in any way, it cannot be used as an act of infringing it. The defendant's criminal act is an unfavorable circumstance against the defendant, such as not only in favor of the victim, but also in favor of the victim's bereaved family members, it appears that the victim caused pain and extreme fear during the process of death, and the defendant was planned by preparing the criminal implements in advance, etc., and it appears that the defendant committed the criminal act in this case at the office where he had the mind of having no superior among the directors of the association. The possibility of criticism is very large, and the defendant is not available from the victim's bereaved family members up to now.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, various circumstances that constitute the sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of this case, including the circumstances after the crime, etc., the punishment as ordered shall be determined.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion;

1. Do verdict;

○ guilty: Nine jurors (many)

2. Sentencing Opinion

○ 25 years of imprisonment: One person.

○ 24 years of imprisonment: One person.

○ 22 years of imprisonment: One person.

○ 21 years of imprisonment: Three persons;

○ 20 years of imprisonment: two persons;

○ 18 years of imprisonment: One person.

For more than one reason, it is decided as per Disposition through a participatory trial under the Act on Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials.

The judges of the presiding judge shall be reappointed;

Judges Kim Jae-tae

Judges Kim Gin-han

1) Since it is merely a reason for voluntary reduction or exemption of punishment, it is merely considered as sentencing factors, and it does not reduce or exempt the punishment.