2016 Maz. 26 Maz. Murder

(b) Concealment of carcasses;

(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

(d) Relief and relief in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes;

(e) Child Welfare violations (Habitual child abuse);

(f) Child Welfare violation (Habitual neglect of a child);

1.(c)(f) A;

2.(a)(d)(f) B

Gangwon Fisheries Division (Lawsuit), New Constitutional Court, Madon, Madon, Kim Slova (Trial)

Attorney C (Korean National Assembly for Defendant A)

Attorney D (Korean National Assembly for Defendant B)

August 10, 2016

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for twenty years and fifteen years, respectively.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of violating the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse) due to emotional abuse shall be acquitted.

Criminal facts

The background of the case

Defendant B is the father of the victim E (n, F) and the victim G (H). Defendant A is the mother of the victims due to the marital relationship on July 21, 2014 when Defendant B reported marriage with Defendant B.

Defendant B created Victim E and Victim G during the marriage period with her former wife I, and Defendant A and Pyeongtaek-si J Housing, which came to live together on May 2013, 201 when the I and the marriage relationship was not resolved.

Defendant B claimed a divorce lawsuit against I on July 4, 2013, and subsequently, on August 2013, based on the judgment that it is favorable for the victims to have the right to foster their children in the process of property division, Defendant B lived with the said J-house. On April 10, 2014, a judicial compromise, including the content that Defendant B is designated as the person with parental authority and the guardian of the victims in the said divorce lawsuit, was established and divorced with I.

On May 14, 2014, the Defendants were directors of Pyeongtaek-si building 202 and resided with the victims until the end of February 2015. On March 3, 2015, the Defendants were directors of Pyeongtaek-si Lone-dong 302, and were living with the victims. On April 14, 2015, the victims E was her early her early her early her early her early her early she resided with the victims’ G.

Since August 2013, Defendant A and the two were living together with the victims who were children of the former wife, Defendant A came to abuse the victims on the ground that the victims’ home did not listen to the horses, and Defendant A began to abuse the victims on the ground that the victims’ home did not leave the former’s home, and on April 14, 2015, the victims’ home did not visit the victim’s house and thereafter, Defendant B was able to entrust the victim with the rearing of the victim to another person, such as her mother or her mother, etc.

【Criminal Facts】

1. Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual abandonment or neglect of a child);

No person shall abandon a child under his/her protection and supervision or neglect the basic protection, rearing, medical treatment and education, including food, clothing and shelter.

around December 2013, the Defendants moved to the third floor, the first floor, the second floor, and the third floor after the completion of the construction. When the Defendants moved to the third floor after the completion of the construction, on the ground that Defendant A did not refuse to live together with the victims, the Defendants were able to live separately in the second floor, and the victims were able to live separately in the second floor, without washing the same clothes for the victims, for more than one week without being able to receive the clothes from the victims, and they did not have any time to live in the second floor.

In addition, from December 2013 to April 14, 2015, the Defendants did not provide clothes and meals to the victims as shown in attached Table 1, and did not send victims E to elementary schools.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to neglect the basic protection, rearing and education, including the consciousness and shelter of victims who are habitually protected and supervised by themselves.

2. Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Habitual child abuse) and the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (Habitual special injury);

A. Defendant A

No person shall commit any physical abuse against a child that may injure his/her body or injure his/her physical health and development.

On October 7, 2014, the Defendant informed the victim E of the fact that he was abused by him to the school teacher and the child center teacher of the school. On October 7, 2014, the Defendant saw the victim E's hand floor several times with plastic (30cm) and put the victim G on the floor of the victim G and put the victim G above the number of days of treatment.

In addition, from March 14, 2014 to April 2015, the Defendant committed assault and cruel acts against the victims G, as described in attached Table 2, with respect to the victim G from November 2015 to January 2016. As a result, the Defendant inflicted injury on the victim G, such as the heat with approximately 5cm in the treatment days, i.e., e., e., math of the fest part of the treatment days, i.e., e., the math of the upper part of the math, i.e., the math of the upper part of the math body, i.e., the upper part of the math body, i., the upper part of the math body body, the upper part of the ma

As a result, the defendant habitually abused the victims who are children, and habitually detained the victims, thereby committing harsh acts, and committed assault or injury to the victims by carrying dangerous objects habitually.

B. Defendant B

No person shall commit any physical abuse against a child that may injure his/her body or injure his/her physical health and development.

Defendant B, at the time, at the time, and at the place specified in the above A (a) above, habitually abused the body of the victims who are children, and habitually detained victims, thereby committing harsh acts. Meanwhile, Defendant B, despite being aware of the fact that the victims were habitually injured or injured, aided and abetted Defendant A to commit the above crime by facilitating the crime without any measures taken by Defendant A, or by neglecting the victims, without taking any measures to protect them.

3. homicide;

From November 2015, Defendant A abused the Victim G in Pyeongtaek-si from around 302, with the intention of Defendant B to leave the Victim to her mother, her mother, or nursery facilities. Defendant A placed the Victim at a residential toilet (a 174 cm, 189 cm, her length 189 cm) for the reason that the Victim was not able to be able to be able to be able to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her, to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her.

On January 14, 2016, the Defendants applied for postponement of attending school to the victim at 00 elementary schools where the victim was scheduled to attend school due to concerns that their child abuse would be discovered.

On January 15, 2016, Defendant A sent Defendant B a text message stating that “I am aware of whether I can sing about I am sing about I am, and inform you of how I am sing about I sing about I am sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about?” “I am sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing about I sing

On January 1, 2016, at around 13:00, Defendant A left the victim in a toilet without taking any measures against the victim for the same reason, even if the victim was her head at a time when the victim was tryed to avoid plastic cleaning, and the victim was faced with about 5 cm with a large number of hair, Defendant A left the toilet without being informed of the occurrence of child abuse by fear that the fact of child abuse might be discovered, and left the toilet without taking any measures against the victim. Defendant B left home and left the toilet without taking any measures against the victim for the same reason.

Defendant A, at around 20:00 on January 29, 2016, on the ground that he/she refused to rear the victim any longer, he/she saw Defendant B and his/her husband on the ground that he/she did not want to rear the victim, and she saw the victim who is placed in the toilet after the victim’s timber, she wel up one so that the victim who was placed in the toilet sheleeps the victim’s shelish, and Defendant B, while she reported the victim’s sheleeping the shelish with a shower, left the victim who was in the form of the victim’s clothes, and then she left the sheleep and water blish in the toilet, and Defendant A entered the toilet at around 23:00 on the same day and left the her head 1 liter (1 liter) in the telegraph of the victim.

At the time, the victim was detained in a toilet with heating for several months, and was in a nutritional condition because he was unable to properly provide meals. The victim was habitually assaulted by Defendant A and was in a state of internal blood and trauma due to internal surgery under the framework because he did not receive proper treatment, and the victim was in a state of internal blood and trauma. The victim was suffering from 2 litress of the body of the victim under such state of the victim, resulting in the victim's aggravation of the body of the victim, and suffered chemical images through the telegraph. The victim was unable to provide meals at all, and the body of the victim was unable to properly accumulated, resulting in serious danger to the victim's life and body.

At around 13:00 on January 31, 2016, Defendant A, as seen above, had been spanty because the victim was in a state of spanty due to the damage to the head body, the scoke, the scoke, the nutrition room, and the inhalement of scoke, etc., left the toilet as they were, and left the toilet as they were without leaving the victim’s body at around 18:0 of the same day. Defendant A left the toilet at around 18:0 of the same day and left the toilet as they were, and Defendant A left the toilet without leaving the scoke of the victim’s body at around 19:0 and left the toilet without leaving the scoke.

At the time of the victim’s continuous abuse, the victim was in serious nutritional injury and the state of body at the level of her own. (The victim’s height and body weight were 112.5 cm, 15.3 cm, and 15.3 km, which was the average standard for children, height was lower than 10 %, and body weight was lower than lower 3%), arms, conflicts, bones, embarllll, hair, head hand, hump, and knum, etc., and the victim was in the state of her body condition, such as her hemical skin deterioration and respiratory distress, and her respiratory bream, which was spreaded around that time. The victim was in the state of her own body, and the toilets detained by the victim was in the state of her own body, which was similar to the outside structure of 24 hours connected to the external air, and the victim could sufficiently be aware of the victim’s body body in the state of her own body within this day.

Nevertheless, the Defendants left the victim who wrod and erod from the grasium to the toilet as they were without leaving the victim in his/her mouth, and went through a mobile game while drinking in his/her mouth and drinking in his/her mouth, requested the rescue of the victim, hearing the victim’s suffering from bad respiratory behavior, and leaving the toilet to the hospital with the knowledge that the victim was faced with extremely dangerous circumstances, the Defendants would be aware of the abuse of the victim’s health, and without taking any relief measures against the victim, the victim continued to leave the victim to the toilet by January 31, 2016 through February 1, 2016, and caused the death of the victim due to damage, hair, etc., dynasium, dynasium, etc., by failing to take any rescue measures against the victim.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim.

4. Concealment of carcasses;

On February 1, 2016, the Defendants discovered the death of G in the same manner as that of the former 09:30 on February 1, 2016, and conspired to conceal the death of G with intent to conceal the crime by threatening criminal punishment, and to conceal the body of G in the vicinity of the father’s cemetery of Defendant B, which is in Pyeongtaek-siN.

At around 15:00 on the same day, the Defendants confirmed that it is difficult for the Defendants to bury the above cemetery due to weather. However, while leaving the G’s body in the benda in the benda due to a vinyl, the Defendants left the body again in the benda, then left the benda in the benda in the benda, then on February 12, 2016, the Defendants went back to the benda and returned to the house again by inserting the Gu celeba in the shape prepared in advance in the vicinity of the above cemetery located in theO at around 21:10 on February 12, 2016, and returned to the benda of the 23:25 on the same day by putting the body of G in the benda and reported to the back of the passenger car and reported to the benda on the same day at around 23:45 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to conceal the G body.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each prosecutor's statement of I, P, M, Q, and R;

1. Each police statement of S and T;

1. Recording recording recording, report and recording recording (E);

1. A living record of U elementary school;

1. One copy of case summary (specialized child protection agency);

1. Five copies of the contents of telephone communications and the contents of conversation, and photographs related to booming and physical abuse;

1. Marriage relation certificate, family relation certificate, resident registration copy, etc.;

1. Report on the results of the analysis of digital evidence (A mobile phone, black box, and report on the results of the analysis of digital evidence (B mobile phone);

1. A written autopsy report and a report on the results of investigation of a deceased person;

1. A written autopsy and appraisal;

1. Yellow survey report, - Within the residence of the victim;

1. Protocol of seizure (Evidence No. 116, 119);

1. Investigation report (Investigation of residential CCTVs and evidence list Nos. 121,133), - CCTV-cap photographs (No. 1-10), photographic images of CCTV images taken by a suspect on 1.2.1, - investigation report (as to the V vehicle moving routes owned by a suspect B), transit records for recognition of V vehicle, investigation report (verification of CCTVs around the mountain site referred to by a suspect B), CCTV-capic photo (No. 1-16) by cutting off CCTVs;

1. Investigation report (date E is absent from U elementary school) - Status of individual withdrawal from school;

1. Investigation report (the result of search conducted in January and February of the NAC);

1. Investigation report (to hear Written statements of witnesses);

1. Investigation Report (Submission of P Data for Relevant Witnesses), - the date for each child, records of G children on March 15, 2014; G on March 15, 2014; 6 copies of photographs adjacent to the Hebuckbucks; text messages sent to the head of the Center before G additional X on November 2014; - text messages sent to the Defendant A and P on November 2014 through November 2015; - text messages sent to the head of the Center before X on March 12, 2013; - E written applications for child care services for E and G prepared by B on March 11, 2014; - e-mail (Evidence 183 through 193) sent to the Center when the Center takes charge of children.

1. Investigation report (the date of counseling on victimized children, etc.), July 22, 2014, between July 22, 2014 and March 4, 2015, investigation report (child card and observation date, etc.), children's card, observation date, photographs, and closing date report (E, G Nos. 194 through 197) (Evidence List) on March 11, 2015;

1. Investigative report (related to records of hospitalization B of a suspect), - a certificate of hospitalization, a certificate of diagnosis, a medical record, and a certificate of release from a hospital;

1. A criminal investigation report (related to the time to and from work of a suspect B), - details of commuting from work on August 2013 to February 2016

1. Investigation report (Attachment of the result of medical advice for medical advisers), - Results of consultation, and requests for medical advice;

1. Habituality of judgment: Recognition of dampness in light of the methods of each crime, frequency of crimes, and repeated abuse of victims in the judgment;

Application of Statutes

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

(a) Defendant A: Articles 250(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 61(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 62 Subparag. 4 (a) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse; Article 258-2(1) and Article 257(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 72, Article 71(1)2 and Article 17 subparag. 3 (Generally, the occupation of habitual special injury) of the Child Welfare Act; Articles 72, 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 3 (the occupation of habitual child abuse; the choice of imprisonment); Articles 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (comprehensively, the occupation of habitual abandonment or neglect of a child; the selection of imprisonment)

(b) Defendant B: Articles 250(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 61(1) and Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 62 Subparag. 4 (a) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes, Articles 258-2(1), 257(1), and 32(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the following provisions are applicable), Articles 72, 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the provision of Articles 72, 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 3 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 32(1) of the Criminal Act (generally, the provision of punishment), Articles 72, 71(1)2 and 17 subparag. 6 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Statutory mitigation;

Defendant B: Articles 32(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (as to the crime of accessories, the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes (Habitually Aggravated Injury), and the crime of aiding and abetting Child Welfare (child abuse))

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Punishment for homicide with the heaviest Punishment)

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's arguments

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant A

The facts of abuse of the victim G were all recognized, but the victim G did not have any fear that the victim G would die and that the victim would die. The Defendant did not refuse to rear the victim and intended to abuse the victim in the mind that another person would take custody of the victim, but did not kill the victim.

At the time of the victim’s death, Defendant A was in a difficult condition to determine the death of the victim, and even if predicted the victim’s death, Defendant A did not take any such relief measures to avoid liability to the victim, but did not take such measures. The victim did not take food and drink so that the victim could not take food, and immediately after the victim died performed emergency measures such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation, etc., it is difficult to view that Defendant A predicted and neglected the result of the victim’s death even if the victim did not do so.

B. Defendant B

Although Defendant A was aware of the fact that Defendant A abused the Victim G, it was not anticipated that Defendant A would have died of the friendly victim G, who was a friendly victim G.

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that Defendant B made several circumstances in which the victim G was injured by the victim G from the toilet, the fact that Defendant B took emergency measures, such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation immediately after the victim G death, and that the victims were faced with the victims over several times due to the problem of fostering the victims, it is difficult to view that Defendant B predicted and neglected the result of the victim’s death even if the victims were not injured.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine of non-petitionable crime 2)

A crime normally consists of active acts, but may also be realized by omission, not preventing the occurrence of result. Article 18 of the Criminal Act provides for the requirements for establishing a crime of omission by stating that “When a person who, having a duty to prevent the occurrence of danger, or having caused the occurrence of danger, does not prevent the occurrence of danger, a person who has a duty to prevent the occurrence of danger, or having caused the occurrence of danger by his own act, shall be punished according to

In a natural sense, omission is nothing more than a non-existent act that is essentially distinguishable from an act with mobility. However, omission as referred to in the above provision becomes the behavior of a person of social importance by determining the normative value of a legal expectation and becomes the basic form of an act along with an act in a legal sense. Therefore, in order for omission not to have the meaning of omission under the Criminal Act, in order for the subject of legal interests protected by the law to have the risk of causing the risk of causing a certain consequence, an actor may be deemed to have failed to perform a practical and physical act required to avoid the realization of the elements.

Furthermore, in the case of the so-called crime of omission, which generally commits a crime committed by omission, such as murder, the subject of the legal interest protected by the law does not have the ability to protect the legal interest to cope with the threat of infringement on the legal interest, and there is a legal duty to act to protect the legal interest from the threat of infringement, and not only is the subject of the duty to act to act to control the situation that causes infringement on the legal interest from the threat of infringement on the legal interest, and it should be easily prevented the occurrence of infringement on the legal interest caused by omission from performing the duty to act, which is equivalent to the infringement on the legal interest caused by the act, and can be evaluated as an act of commission of a crime. However, the duty to act here is recognized as not only by the law, legal act, preceding

In addition, the intention of the omission crime is not necessarily required to be the purpose or planned criminal intent for the occurrence of the constituent consequence, but it is sufficient for a person who has a legal duty to act to prevent the occurrence of the consequence by performing his/her duty to prevent the occurrence of the consequence, and for the awareness that he/she does not perform his/her duty by denying and neglecting the occurrence of the result, and even if the occurrence of the result is not definite, it can be acknowledged as willful negligence even if not only is conclusive but also uncertain cases. In such a case, the psychological state of the person liable to act should be confirmed by comprehensively taking into account the following: the ground for the duty to act; the form and risk of infringement of legal interest; the degree of control over the infringement of legal interest of the person without the duty to act; the content and ease of the required duty to act; the motive and background leading up to omission; the correlation between the type of omission and the occurrence of the result.

B. Determination

1) Defendants consistently denied the Defendants’ intent to murder with respect to the Victim G consistently at the investigation stage up to this court. There is no witness to the instant crime except the victim G and the Defendants, who was detained from November 201 to January 2016, when the victim G was detained in a toilet, from the time when the victim G died. Therefore, in mind, the Defendants ought to objectively be inferred as to whether the Defendants had the intent to murder, taking into account all the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence, taking into account the possibility of a reduced statement as the perpetrator, taking into account all the circumstances recognized by the evidence.

2) Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A) Defendant B and I got married to and got a victim under the chain of marriage with I, and began to live together with Defendant A, who had been in a singing room from May 2013, when they were not good marital relationship. Defendant B filed a divorce lawsuit against I on July 2013 and began to live together with the victims and the Defendants and the victims on April 10, 2014, under the judgment that the possession of the right to care was favorable to the divorce lawsuit. Defendant B and I divorced from the said lawsuit on April 10, 2014; Defendant B and I reported the marriage on July 21, 2014.

B) Defendant A, who was living with Defendant B, had the victims nurtured themselves, and had them feel a burden in fostering. In particular, the victim G neglected the basic rearing of the victims, such as assaulting the victims and imprisonment, and neglecting the basic rearing of the victims by failing to take care of the victims, on the ground that the victims’ house did not have any satisfy, and that they were in the house without permission, etc., the victims E began to be punished. Defendant A was frequently disputed the issue of raising the victims, and attempted to send them to M or E-friendly I et al., the victims were tried to do so more frequently. However, the victims did not have any proper need for clothes and meals to the victims, as well as assaulting the victims and imprisoning them.

C) While living together with Defendant A, the victim E was attending U elementary schools, and the victim G was attending the Z kindergarten from September 2014, and was attending the Z kindergarten from around September 2014. The victims were also at the Y Children Center (Y children Center 3) after completing the school and the kindergarten from around September 2013.

라) Y아동센터는 피고인들이 피해자들을 방임하거나 학대한다고 의심하여 피해자들에 대한 관찰일지와 상담일지를 비교적 상세히 작성하였다. 그 내용을 보면, '겨울에 옷을 제대로 입히지 않음', '집에서 밥을 제대로 못 먹어 센터에서 간식과 저녁을 지나치게 많이 먹음', '바지에 오줌을 쌌는데 엄마한테 혼날까봐 걱정을 많이 함', '속옷을 챙겨 입지 않음', '잠바를 입지 않음', '작은 일에도 평평 울고, 심리적으로 불안함', '계속 같은 티셔츠만 입음', '(우박이 오는데) 우산을 쓰지 않아 운동화와 양말이 다 젖어서 옴' 등으로 기재되어 있다. 피해자 G의 병설유치원 선생님과 피해자 E의 학교 담임선생님들이 작성한 일지 등에도 당시 피해자들의 상태에 대하여 '엄마를 싫어하고 두려워 한다', '항상 배고파 한다', '집에서 돈들어 가는 것을 못하게 한다'는 등으로 기재되어 있다.

E) The Defendants were asked for counseling to the Defendants or reported to the Specialized Child Protection Agency for the GY Children of the Republic of Korea on the fact that the victim was a room at the victim’s school, and the police called the victim to move out of the house. Defendant A, considering interference with home affairs, was put to the victim’s entrance control that the victim did not absolutely go outside of the house, and Defendant B also put the victim’s birth who requested counseling, and the victim A was satched. As such, the Defendants did not send the victims to the KY center from December 2, 2014, and did not send the victim G to the kindergarten annexed to the victim.

F) The Defendants frequently disputed the issue of raising victims, and Defendant B also entrusted the victims to the Y Children Center for a period of one month, Defendant A and the Y Children Center, Defendant A and the hedginged the victims, and the her her mother did not look at the victims. During the process, Defendant A attempted suicide, but it was difficult for them to make mutual reconciliation and return to the victims.

G) Around the beginning of April 2015, the victim E calls to N, N, N, N, N, N, who was absent from the school of 2 to 3 days, and M, sent the voice message to Defendant B, who is an son, without sending the message to the school. Defendant A sent the victim G, who would not have any part of E, and sent it to E, only. From that time, the Defendants did not communicate or communicate with M and E.

H) Although Defendant B demanded Defendant B to leave the victim G to different areas, there were many disputes between the couple due to Defendant B’s demand. On November 201, 2015, the victim G changed the number of rooms into the toilet, and the victim was released from the toilet. While two times after the opening of the toilet, the victim was released from the toilet again, and the victim was detained from the mid-term period of November 2015 so that it could not go outside the toilet. The victim G attempted to leave the toilet after being detained, and continued to be detained in the toilet until the victim died. Defendant B did not have been able to escape from the toilet for a more severe period of time after being seriously abused from Defendant A, and did not want to take out the toilet for a more time after being detained. Defendant A put the victim into the toilet to the extent that the victim was released from the victim’s right of assault and cleaning, and expressed the victim’s own meal to avoid any collision between Defendant B and the victim. Defendant A and the victim’s own food.

A person shall be appointed.

(i) Defendant A, who did not have the problem of bringing up the victim G, detained the victim G in the toilet and raised the level of abuse. On January 29, 2016, Defendant B, who found it different from Defendant B, did so to the victim G, and Defendant B found it, but left the victim in the toilet without breaking a shower with the victim, and left the victim in the toilet. Even according to the Defendant’s statement, the victim G was lost without any force from around that time, and it was hard to expect it with the wall or expected on the wall (the investigation record No. 146, 1163, 163, 1539, 156, 1595, 156, 1569, 165, 165, 165, 165, 165, 165, 205).

(j) At around 13:00 on January 31, 2016, Defendant A left the victim G’s panty with a defect and left the clothes. At around 19:00 on the same day, Defendant B left the panty, left the panty, and left the body, and then left the body without washing water, and left the body. The rest at which the victim was detained was 8 degrees under zero at the time of the structure where the heating was inside and the spanch was connected externally.

(k) According to the examination report by the National Scientific Investigation Institute, with respect to the injury of the victim, there is damage to the skin blood and heat in various heads, including the heat hold of 4.5 cm length, and the victim's injury to the skin was found to have been abnormally cut, and the damage caused by external force which has been repeatedly worked on the part of the body was found to have been fibersd from the two sub-annual installments. ③ At the end, the body body body of the victim was proved to have been destroyed without any damage to the victim's body in light of the following:

(l) After confirming the death of the victim G, the Defendants fabricated various evidences to conceal their behaviors by preparing for the commencement of the investigation, and made false statements to the investigation agency that the victim G went back to the house or lost on the road due to the commencement of the investigation.

3) Whether murder was established by omission

A) Determination as to whether the omission by the Defendants can be assessed as the commission of murder

In full view of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court in the above facts, the omission by the Defendants, which failed to appropriately rescue the victim G, can be assessed to the same extent as the commission of murder by commission. The result of the victim G’s death is the same in normative value as that of the result by commission.

① Defendant B, as a person with parental authority or relative with the victim G, has the legal duty to act in accordance with Article 913 of the Civil Act and Article 5 of the Child Welfare Act to protect the victim who is in danger. Defendant A, as a leader of the victim G, has the legal duty to act in accordance with Article 5 of the Child Welfare Act to protect the victim who is in danger under Article 5 of the Child Welfare Act, as well as the duty to act in accordance with the law and the doctrine to act in the manner of protecting the victim who is in danger under Article 5 of the Child Welfare Act. As such, Defendant A, as a leader of the victim G, is not only recognized, but also a person who causes danger by spreading the

② The victim G was confined to toilets for several months from November 2015, 2015 due to only one of the six years of age at the time, and was cut off from the outside. Since Defendant A’s chilling of serious violence, the victim G was not capable of protecting himself/herself, and only the Defendants were able to rescue the victim G.

③ Even if the Defendants were to take relatively simple and easy measures, such as checking the health conditions of the victims and having them go from toilets to get heating and receiving hospital treatment, the Defendants did not lead to the death of the victims G.

B) Determination on the intent of murder

In full view of the following circumstances, the facts of recognition as seen earlier, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, and the Defendants, even if not the death of the victim G, did not seem to have been caused by the victim G, and did not recognize that the victim G could have died when leaving the victim G at the end of January 2016, when leaving the victim G at the end of the year 2016. It is recognized that the Defendants, who had the legal obligation to protect the victim G, was aware that they could easily prevent the occurrence of the result of the victim’s death by performing the said obligation, and that they did not perform the obligation by denying and neglecting the result, even though they could have easily prevented the occurrence of the victim’s death.

① In light of the result of autopsy conducted by the victim G, the head, arms, and legs, etc., blood transfusions were laid down in various physical places, including head, arms, and legs, and the Defendants discovered a large amount of 4.5 cm in length on this part, and the Defendants filed an application for the postponement of attending school G, and applied for the postponement of attending school at the time, physical abuse against the victim at the time may be inferred.

② As a result of the psychological evaluation (PAI) on Defendant A, it was found that: (a) in all areas, such as the degree of uneasiness (NX), uneasiness degree (ARD), depression degree (DPE), and alcohol problem degree; (b) as a result of the pre-examination (AUD IT), the level of alcohol addiction was 40 points in total; (c) Defendant A appears to have been unable to completely control the appraisal if they go out or show alcohol; and (d) it appears that there seems to have been extreme progress to the extent that they would lose easia if they go through alcohol and drink in the state of drinking. Defendant A’s unstable psychological and stress led to an emergency abuse against the victim; and (d) Defendant A did not control easia, and did not control easia to the victim.

③ Defendant A stated at an investigative agency that “the victim was frighten and difficult until the victim died.” Defendant A she was frighted with her frighten and did not look at the victim until her death thereafter.” Defendant A did not drinked her fright at the frighten and did not drink. Defendant A did not keep her frighted with her bright, and did not put her bright with her bright and her bright with her frighten. He she did not drink her fright, but she was fright around one week before her death (after her fright) and her frighted with her frighten and frightened with her frightened with her frighten and frightened with her frighten. The victim stated to the effect similar to her frighten and her brighted with her frighten in the investigation agency around 2-3 days.

④ While Defendant A was confined to the victim G, 2 kids per day from around January 2016, 2016, Defendant A reduced 1 kids per day, and the victim was unable to provide meals due to health aggravation before the victim died. The victim G was 106 cm and 18 km from May 16, 2014 at the time Y Children’s Center was transferred to the center, but the body 110 cm and 15.3 km from the body at the time of death around February 2016, the body 2.7 km for about 20 km. Defendant B also stated that the victim was detained in the investigative agency during the period when the victim was detained in the toilet.

⑤ Defendant B seems to have been fully aware of the fact that Defendant A was deprived of, and abused the victims, and that the abuse of, the victim G became worse. However, even though the victims were aware of the abuse, the victims were not exposed to and did not have any interest in order to avoid collision with Defendant A, Defendant A left the victim G in a toilet and abused the victim’s body and left the victim’s body without any effort to confirm or improve the health condition of the victim G, and even without any effort to confirm or improve the health condition of the victim’s G, Defendant A’s abuse was serious, and the health condition of the victim’s G has deteriorated.

6) Defendant B made a statement to the effect that “I think that I could die (victim G) at an investigative agency,” “I would have anticipated that I might die, but did not take any action to ask for the death,” “I would have failed to take any action to ask for the death,” “I would have been able to cause the death of G,” and “I would have tried to think that I would have been able to see that I would have been able to die, but could not take any action (No. 1089 pages, No. 1093, 110 pages, 115 pages, 1121, 3rd, 1385 pages, 5 of investigation records).”

7) In light of the victim G’s technological temperature in January of Pyeongtaek-si where the victim G was detained in a toilet, most of the lowest temperature was zero, and the minimum temperature at the time of death was zero eight degrees. Moreover, the toilet was not heating, and was directly connected to the outside, instead of heating. If the body of the 6-year infant suffering from physical abuse, and the body of the 6-year infant suffering from the physical abuse, she could have been able to die with a low temperature, even if it was not a medical specialist.

④ On February 20, 2016, Defendant A searched on the Internet the word “a few years,” “a few years,” “vescence,” “abstinence,” “abstinence,” and “abstinence,” “abstinence,” “abstinence,” respectively.

9. If “AB” was unable to take food for seven days prior to the death of the victim G, and if we were to satis in the state of satisfy in the state of violence, she was unable to satisfy in the state of satisfy, she was able to know that satisfy would have been in the state of satisfy even if she was presumed to have lost the outside satisfy, without any reaction to the outside satisfy, and there was almost no movement. If satisfy in the situation of satisfy, G could easily fall into satisfy, and if satisfy in the state of satisfy in the body of the Defendant, satisfy in the state of satisfy in the body of the Defendant, satisfy in the state of satisfy.

In full view of the above medical advice of the doctors, it is presumed that Defendant G was in a state that could have known that the health condition has deteriorated even if accumulated in the end of January 2016 when Defendant G was unable to properly drinked. The Defendants, who continued to use toilets where the victim G was detained, could have sufficiently known that the health condition of the victim G has deteriorated.

Reasons for sentencing

Although Defendant A was not the mother of the victims, he did not properly provide the victims with basic clothes and meals, despite his duty to protect and rear their age as the mother, and did not properly provide them. The victims were confined in beeras, and the victims were confined in beerera, and the victims were saved with an excessive physical punishment. In particular, the victims G, who were only six deaths, did not save the side of the victim, and did not keep the victim G in a narrow toilet that does not have any heating for a short period of time in the winter, and the victim G died with a physical temperature. This led to the death of the victim G by leaving the victim G, who was in a extreme health condition, in the toilet.

Although Defendant A got married with Defendant B in love, it seems that Defendant A was exposed to stress arising from the reality that he should raise victims rather than friendly consciousness, Defendant B’s attachment to Defendant B, and himself was also subject to serious abuse from his mother without being imprudented by his parents during growth process, and the attitude of bringing-up, etc. that he acquired during influence, and thus, it seems that Defendant A was able to display fluence through the victims under the name of fumi that he did not control flusiums and emotions, without being able to control them.

Defendant B, as a relative of the victims, has the responsibility to protect the victims first, and even though he was fully aware of the abuse of Defendant A, Defendant A took care of it. In particular, Defendant A was aware of the degree of abuse, such as placing the victim G in the toilet and shelsheshesheshesheshesheshesheshes. Defendant B, who is a relative, actively took appropriate relief measures against the victim G, is likely to have a conflict with Defendant A. When Defendant B actively takes the appropriate relief measures against the victim G, Defendant B’s liability for the crime is heavier than Defendant A because it appears that the victim G would not have reached the death.

Although Defendant B made efforts to take care of victims to another place, it did not find an appropriate alternative in reality, and Defendant A had no choice but to take care of victims, it seems that Defendant A was urgently responsible to avoid extreme conflicts with Defendant A rather than the victims' awareness.

The victim G, who did not have the ability to defend himself, did not request any assistance from any person in the external state of pro-Japanese. It is difficult to easily see that the victim G, who did not have the ability to defend, died without having to request any assistance from any person. It is also difficult to see that the victim E is aware of and live in the memory of suffering caused by abuse received from the parent, and in particular, how the love is dead.

After confirming the death of the victim G, the Defendants attempted to conceal the dead body and conceal the crime, and the police investigation began, but the Defendants made a false statement and made a false representation in the investigation process, and there is also no circumstances after the crime is committed.

In the past, there was a relatively minor tendency to punish child abuse on the ground that it is the parent of the victimized child by treating child abuse as a matter of internal problem within the family or a matter of child decoration, but there was a social consensus that child abuse crime should be punished on the basis of several recent issues. The court also needs to faithfully perform the duty to protect the victimized child from violence and abuse by punishing the perpetrator of the child abuse crime. Meanwhile, the victims of this case are suspected of abuse and reporting it to the police in many agencies. However, there was no proper response due to the institutional limit. These efforts without legal coercion led to the opportunity for the Defendants to put the victims at a more gathering and deepening the abuse. Ultimately, child abuse crime is caused by the combination of social perception and system problems with respect to child protection, so it is difficult to see that it is difficult to say that it is helpful to prevent the Defendants from spreading the true cause of the case.

While maintaining the order of the community, the fundamental duties of the criminal justice are determined by closely examining the unique characteristics of individual cases and the individual responsibilities. The Defendants are the initial offenders, but the intent of murder is denied, but all of the basic facts are recognized, the victims G are not actively intended, and the Defendants also suffered significant pain and difficulties in reasonably establishing marital relations and the relationship with the victims, taking into account the fact that they were subject to a large amount of divorce and death of the parents in the course of their growth, and the recent sentencing cases of the same similar cases were considered, taking into account the following factors: (a) there was no direct abuse against the victims; and (b) there was no other Defendants’ age, character and conduct, and environment, and the conditions of sentencing as indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the age, character and conduct, etc. of the victims.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged

A guardian of a child shall rear the child healthy and safely at home in accordance with the period of growth of the child, and shall not engage in emotional abuse that harms the mental health and development of the child under his/her protection and supervision.

At around January 25, 2015, the Defendants were able to take care of the victims while the victims, who are children, at the home of the Defendants in Pyeongtaek-si Building 202, and they were being frighted due to the problems of fostering the victims, and Defendant A took care of the cryp, such as shot, smelling, etc., and “the security of the cryp inside the cryp, fright,” and “the cryp of the cryp and the cryp of the cryp,” and Defendant B took care of all the clothes of the victims, and Defendant B took care of the cryp of the cryp of the cryp, and Defendant B took care of the cryp of the cryp of the Defendant B.

In addition, from March 2014 to January 2016, the Defendants: (a) 2 times a week from around March 2014 to the end of January 2016, the victims, who are children, have been fightinged with mutual desire, taking a tool, and taking a tool.

As a result, Defendants conspired and habitually committed emotional abuse that may harm the mental health and development of victims who are children.

2. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the intent of the Defendants to commit emotional abuse against the victims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① Even though the Defendants were aware of the fact that they had fighting between husband and wife as stated in the attached Table 3, this is nothing more than the Defendants’ assertion that they did not act against the victims.

② It is difficult to deem that the Defendants had the intent to engage in emotional abuse to the victims through a marital fighting.

③ The Defendants stated that most victims were the victims at the time of marital fighting.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime and thus, the Defendants are acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Kim Dong-dong et al.

Judges Song In-service

Judicial branch support

1) “Habitual crime” under Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Child Abuse Crimes refers to the habit of abusive acts that cover all the crimes listed in each item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the same Act. Therefore, if a person with the above habitive wall has committed the crimes of different types under each item of the Criminal Act listed in each item of Article 2 subparag. 4 of the same Act, each act constitutes an inclusive crime of the most severe statutory penalty among each item (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do3657, Aug. 21, 2008; 201256815, Aug. 17, 2012). In this case, health class, the crime of habitual special injury, the fact of habitual special assault, and the fact of habitual confinement constitute a comprehensive crime of habitual injury under Article 6 and Article 2 subparag. 4 (a) of the same Act, the most severe statutory penalty.

2) Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do6809 Decided November 12, 2015

3) The students of E’s school care classes were not managed due to their failure to provide boomed, etc., and the victims became the victims to contact the above center.

4) Defendant B made a statement that it is too obvious that she would have been abused by the prosecution even though she was suffering from abuse (Article 1348 of the Investigation Records).

5) After the Prosecutor’s nine-time interrogations, “A person who did not make any statement” and stated as to the reversal of the previous prosecutor’s statement (No. 5 of investigation records No. 2967 of investigation records),

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.

A person shall be appointed.