Defendant 1 and three others

Defendant 1 and two others

Edives Sponsor

Attorneys Park Jong-il et al.

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2006Gohap372 Decided December 21, 2006

All of Defendant 1’s appeal and prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants are dismissed.

The part against Defendant 2 and 3 in the judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant 2 shall be punished by imprisonment for seven years, and imprisonment for two years and six months, respectively.

The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be 106 days each included in the above punishment against the defendant 2 and 3.

However, with respect to the defendant 3, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Seized Seocho Ppuri 756g (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office No. 2729 of 2006) shall be forfeited from Defendant 2.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant Kim Jong-su

The imprisonment with prison labor of the court below is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant 2

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

(A) The Defendant’s attempted murder: (a) the Defendant 1’s water, which is the month of “the first generation of the first generation of the instant drug,” and water, which is the month of “the first generation of the first generation of the instant drug” (hereinafter “the second generation of the instant drug”); but (b) the first purchase of the instant drug was impossible due to death, and there was no risk; (c) thus, the Defendant did not have the intention of murder, and thus, the Defendant could not be punished

(B) The charge of murder: the Defendant did not have conspired to murder with Co-Defendant 1.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

C. Defendant 3

(1) misunderstanding of facts: The defendant knew that the victim was to commit suicide and tried to assist him to do so, and only knew with Co-defendant 1 and did not have intention to commit murder.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

(d) A prosecutor;

The sentence of the lower court against the Defendants is deemed to be too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant 1

In order to receive large amount of life insurance money that the defendant joined in the name of the victim who is the husband from 2004 to her economic situation, the defendant attempted to murder against the victim by drinking the drug amount of this case or demanding murder, etc. In the process, he/she also allowed to subscribe to life insurance in the name of the victim. In the end, he/she has drawn up to co-defendant 3 to her name and killed the victim's name her name. In light of the circumstances of the crime, the means and methods of the crime, the result of the crime, the relation with the victim, etc., the facts and circumstances of the crime are extremely serious. The defendant first asserted that he/she committed suicide while recognizing that he/she committed the crime, the principal responsibility of the crime was asserted against co-defendant 2, and then his/her name, it is also possible to punish the defendant as a statutory highest punishment. However, in light of the fact that the defendant did not have any criminal history, the defendant's first offense, his/her age and character as well as his/her personal background, the defendant's age and circumstances.

B. As to Defendant 2

(1) As to the attempted murder

In full view of the results of inquiry into the president of the Korean Medical Association, the court below duly adopted and examined the facts. Co-defendant 1 sent water to the victim, which is the first half of April 2004, "the first half of the first half of the first half of the year" month, which was dried by the defendant, and caused the victim to be dried by mixing the water, which is the "the first half of the first half of the year" month, which was dried by the defendant, with the victim, and again, the victim tried to kill the victim by drinking water, which was dried by the defendant, but the victim tried to kill the victim by drinking water, which contains toxic substance, and thus, it can be seen as adverse effects if the first half of the year contains toxic substance, and Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 1 stated that "the first half of the first half of the year of this case may die the victim," and that Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 1 stated that "the second half of the first half of the year of this case can not be found to have been dead."

(2) As to murder

In addition to the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were found to have engaged in the 8th day of telephone call, i.e., the first day of this case to Co-defendant 1 before Co-defendant 1's committing the homicide, or 23.5 million won to Co-defendant 1's own money, and attempted to kill the victim in collusion with Co-defendant 1's investigation agency and trial court, up to Co-defendant 1's first day of murder and several times of telephone conversations between the defendant 1 and the defendant 4: The defendant 1 and Co-defendant 2's first day of the 8th day of the 6th day of the 8th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 8th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 6th day of the 1st day of the 2nd day of the 7th day of the 1st day of the 3th day.

(3) As to sentencing

In the process of murdering and murdering through Co-Defendant 1's several months, the defendant strengthened the homicide of Co-Defendant 1, provided the first price of the instant drug to him, provided the defendant's money to murder with the defendant's own money, and thus, the nature and circumstances of the crime are very serious. However, since the defendant did not promise to receive insurance money that Co-Defendant 1 attempted to receive through each of the instant crimes, it is difficult to view that he was involved in each of the instant crimes as alleged in Co-Defendant 1, and the defendant did not have any criminal power, and if considering all other circumstances, such as the age, character, character, academic background, career, home environment, etc. of the defendant, the punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is unreasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion on this is without merit, and the prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

C. As to Defendant 3

(1) As to murder

Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 2, on April 2006 and on May 1, 2006, knew that Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 2 were trying to kill the victim by proposing murdering the victim or murdering the victim (Article 834, 868, and 890 of the Investigation Records). The defendant was refused to do so with the intention of murdering from Co-defendant 1 (Article 117 of the Investigation Records, No. 862, 889 of the Investigation Records). Since Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 2 did not have borrowed KRW 27 million, which can be seen as almost all property at the court below, and Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 2 did not have to have borrowed money to Co-defendant 1 with the victim's husband at the time of murdering the crime of this case (Article 18 of the Investigation Records, No. 862,889 of the Investigation Records). Co-defendant 1 and Co-defendant 1 had no reason for the defendant 1 to have died with the victim.

(2) As to sentencing

Although the defendant's participation in murder cannot be deemed to be less than the nature of the crime. Meanwhile, in the situation where the defendant lent 27 million won, which can be said to be almost all property, to Co-Defendant 1, he was asked to participate in murder several times by Co-Defendant 1, etc. by the day immediately before the crime of murder in this case, but refused to do so, he heard the statement that he shall not return the above money if he did not participate in murder from Co-Defendant 1, who was found on the day of the crime of murder in this case, and he was the first offender, and the defendant suffered mental illness from 10 years before the crime in this case, so his ability to judge at the time of the crime in this case is deemed to have diminished compared to the general public, and considering all the overall circumstances such as the defendant's age, character, character, academic background, work experience, family environment, etc., the prosecutor's assertion that the judgment of the court below against the defendant in this case is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor's assertion as to this is without merit.

D. As to the accommodation of the Defendant

The defendant's act of taking part in the conspiracy of murder by introducing co-defendant 2 to co-defendant 3,00,000 won of money and valuables received by the defendant is merely 8,00,000 won, and thus, the degree of the defendant's participation does not seem to be significant. The defendant did not have any specific criminal power other than a fine imposed once by violence, and he deposited KRW 10,000 for the bereaved family of the victim in light of his depth, and all other circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and behavior, academic background, career, family environment, etc., it is not recognized that the court below's punishment is too unreasonable. Thus, the prosecutor's assertion on this is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Ultimately, since the appeal by Defendant 1 and the appeal by the prosecutor against the Defendants are without merit, all of them are dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and since the appeal by Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 is with merit, each part of the judgment below against Defendant 2 and Defendant 3 among the judgment below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act and it is decided as follows through pleading.

The summary of each of the facts charged and evidence against the defendant 2 and 3 recognized by this court is as stated in each of the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and therefore they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

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

Defendant 2: Articles 254, 250(1), 30(2), 250(1), 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 255 and 250(1)(2) of the Criminal Act, Articles 250(1), 250(1), and 30(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant 3: Articles 250(1) and 30(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 2);

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Punishment and homicide with the most serious Crimes)

1. Discretionary mitigation (Defendant 3);

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Consideration in light of the circumstances stated in the grounds for reversal)

1. Calculation of days of pre-trial detention (Defendant 2, 3);

Article 57 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant 3);

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (As stated in the Grounds for Destruction)

1. Confiscation (Defendant 2);

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judge Cho Young-young (Presiding Judge)