206 Gohap1 A. homicide

(b) Special obstruction of performance;

(c) Violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning Traffic Accident Settlement;

(d) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

(e) Violation of the Road Traffic Act;

△△△△

Dog Dog

변호사 ▲▲▲

June 2, 2006

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for up to 18 years. The number of detention days prior to the pronouncement of this judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

Criminal History Office

The Defendant, at the Suwon District Court on May 14, 2004, issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for a violation of the Road Traffic Act, etc., and the above court on July 16, 2004, issued a summary order of KRW 2 million for the same crime. The Defendant, who was driving a vehicle without obtaining a driver’s license, was under the influence of driving the vehicle on several occasions since around 2001, and was under the control of the violation of the Road Traffic Act on three occasions by driving without a license, and continuously driving the vehicle without a license under the control of a fine of KRW 4 million due to a designated failure to pay a fine for the said violation, and thus, was under the influence of driving without a license.

1. On December 205, 21: (a) the victim was driving a vehicle with a speed exceeding 00 Ra 000 on the front side of a water-based sports park without permission, and the victim was asked to drive a motor vehicle with a speed exceeding 1,000 on the upper side of the road because of the victim A (32 years of age) who is a police officer assigned to the traffic guidance department of the Suwon-nam Police Station to stop drinking, and then will be detained for the measurement of drinking, and the victim was able to leave the vehicle at a speed exceeding 1,00 if the victim was able to drive the motor vehicle with a speed exceeding 2,00,000 and tried to remove the vehicle from the center without permission and fine, and the victim was able to drive the motor vehicle with a speed exceeding 1,000 without permission, and the victim was able to drive the motor vehicle with a speed exceeding 1,000,000, more than 2,000,000.

The death of a victim caused the death of a shockr caused by a shock, such as a heat hold and a diverse, and at the same time assaulting the victim who was performing legitimate duties concerning drinking control as a police officer by using a dangerous object, and causing the death of the victim;

2. 자동차 운전면허를 받지 아니하고, 수원시 권선구 오목천동 소재 오목천 지하차도 출구 부근 도로에서, 혈중알콜농도 0.106%의 술에 취한 상태에서 전항과 같은 경위로 위 산타페 승용차를 운전하고 수원 고색동 방면에서 화성 매송 방면으로 2차로를 따라 시속 약 120㎞로 진행하다가 전항과 같이 위 A를 떨어뜨리기 위하여 1차로로 급차로 변경하면서 피고인 운전차량 왼쪽 옆부분으로 중앙분리대를 들이받아 차량이 오른쪽으로 튕겨나가게 한 과실로, 피고인 운전차량 오른쪽 앞휀다 부분으로 피고인을 추격하여 뒤따라오던 피해자 B(47세) 운전의 그랜저 택시 왼쪽 옆부분을 들이받은 후 다시 왼쪽으로 진행하면서 피고인 운전차량 왼쪽 앞휀다 부분으로 1차로를 따라 진행하는 피해자 C 운전의 비스토 승용차 오른쪽 앞휀다 부분을 들이받게 하여 그 충격으로 피해자 B로 하여금 약 3주간의 치료를 요하는 경추의 염좌 및 긴장 등의 상해를, 위 그랜저 택시에 동승하고 있던 피해자 D로 하여금 약 2주간의 치료를 요하는 두부타박 등의 상해를, 피해자 C 및 위 비스토 승용차에 동승하고 있던 피해자 E로 하여금 각 약 2주간의 치료를 요하는 경추부염좌 등의 상해를 각 입게 하였다.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Judgment on Defendant’s argument

1. Defendant's assertion;

As to the crime of murder in the judgment of the defendant, the defendant knew that the victim A was sent to the tea immediately before the entry, and that there was no intention of murder because the central separation unit was shocked by driving rooms, and that there was no intention of murder at the time, and that there was no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions by drinking alcohol.

2. Determination

A. Whether he/she is guilty of murder

According to the evidence above, the defendant demanded the victim to get off the vehicle to breath, and started the vehicle at a rapid speed. The victim was unable to get off the vehicle due to the defendant's rapid departure from the vehicle. The victim was forced to get off the vehicle. The two legs coming into contact with the road. The defendant was driving on the breath as stated in the judgment, and the defendant got off the vehicle at a speed and proceeded with one lane at a speed. The victim demanded the victim to stop the vehicle at a time when the victim entered the breacheon Underground Road, but the victim called on the breath, the victim was driving in close vicinity the Central Separation Zone without entering the breath, and the victim was driving the vehicle at a speed close to the breath, and the victim was driving the vehicle at a speed of two lanes to overtake the vehicle at a speed of one-lane and then changed the vehicle at a speed of one-lane to the upper speed of the vehicle at a speed of one-lane. The victim was able to get off the vehicle at a speed of one-lane and then changed the two-lane.

However, in light of the fact that it is highly probable that the speed of a motor vehicle is about 120 meters in speed at the time when the motor vehicle is moored on the door of the motor vehicle, and in this case, it is probable that the motor vehicle might die only by falling away from the asphalt road as it is, as stated in its reasoning, and there is a possibility that the motor vehicle may die with the rear wheels of the motor vehicle, and as in this case, it is likely that the motor vehicle would conflict with the central separation zone and may die if the motor vehicle is driven near the underground or the central separation zone of the road, and that there is a possibility that the motor vehicle might die due to the collision with the central separation zone, and that the motor vehicle might die from the motor vehicle, and that the defendant tried to kill the victim spathing on the motor vehicle at the time.

B. Whether the person is defective or mentally ill;

In light of the fact that the Defendant, at the head-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on-on without any accident

3. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is rejected in entirety.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of homicide), Articles 144(2) and (1), 136 of the Criminal Act (the point of interfering with the execution of special public duties), Articles 3(1), 3(2)(proviso)7 and 8 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, Article 268 of the Criminal Act (the point of causing occupational injury), Articles 107-2 subparag. 1, 41(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license), Articles 109(1), 40(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the point of driving without a license)

1. Commercial competition;

Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act ( ① mutually between the crime of homicide and the crime of special obstruction of performance of official duties, and the punishment imposed on the crime of homicide heavier than the heavier punishment, ② the punishment imposed on the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents among the crimes of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, ② the punishment imposed on the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents against Victims C with the largest punishment, ③ the choice of imprisonment without prison labor, ③ the

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37(former part), 38(1)2 and (2), and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment shall be aggravated within the scope of adding up the long-term punishment for each crime of murder prescribed in the holding of the largest punishment)

1. Inclusion of days of detention in detention;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant, even though he had already been punished for drinking or non-licensed driving several times, has failed to observe the law, and even if the defendant started driving immediately after the driver's request for suspension of driving, the victim did not reach the result of the victim's minor body or at least his death. While the defendant had sufficient opportunity to do so, he murdered a young police officer who was faced with this reason by driving, although he was under the influence of alcohol at the time, the defendant argued that he did not have the intention of murder because he had no intention of murder because he had been aware of the victim's death, the victim's wife's wife has yet to go beyond the shock of her husband's death, and the victim's age was considered to have failed to go back to her gender with his mother's death, and even if she did not have been sentenced to the defendant's death, the defendant would not have been able to be able to receive compensation for any injury other than the defendant's death insurance money.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

The presiding judge, judge,000

Judges 1000

Judges 1000