2015 Gohap67 Sheeted Sheet structure and fire prevention

2015, 7 (Joint) An order to attach an electronic device

Persons whose attachment order is requested;

sentence**

Kim* (prosecutions), this** (Public Trial)

Attorney Barn* (Korean National Assembly)

September 24, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty years.

To the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered for ten years.

Matters to be observed in the attached Form shall be imposed on the person requested to attach an attachment order.

Criminal facts and the facts constituting the attachment order

[Criminal Facts]

The defendant and the person against whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") have been living in Seongdong-gu Seoul from 2008 to ************* apartment*********** the mother's life together with the victim A (n, 81 years old) and Macar B.

1. Murder;

On March 26, 2015: around 00, the Defendant: (a) had a minor dispute with each other, such as television viewing and money in which the victim had been placed with the victim; (b) had the victim, and had the victim died of the victim’s boom by pressure on the face of the victim’s body, who was in mind at the entrance of the toilet, with the victim’s body, with the victim’s mind that the victim could not have been able to kill his/her breath because he/she did not go beyond the victim’s breath because he/she was unable to do so; and (c) had the victim died of his/her breath by force on the face of the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim who is a lineal ascendant.

2. Dried building or fire prevention;

On March 26, 2015, at around 05: around 05, the Defendant: (a) killed her mother; (b) was able to influen the fire; (c) was able to influen the entrance floor of the entrance of the entrance, the toilet front corridor floor, and the bend with fire in an influence method; and (d) was fluences, clothing, books, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant destroyed the above apartment bond that is used by family members as a residence.

【Fact of Grounds for Attachment Orders】

As above, the Defendant is a person who has committed murder and is likely to again commit murder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the accused;

1. A copy of the police statement of the police officer in relation to B, F, G and H;

1. Family relation certificate and marriage relation certificate (defendant), resident registration certificate;

1. A report on investigation (a telegraphic photo of a suspect), a photo of a person who has suffered from a change, a copy of the body list at the scene of a change, a copy of the results of autopsy, a written result of autopsy, a written opinion of autopsy, and a written opinion of autopsy;

1. The 112 Incident treatment sheet, emergency medical service log, scene photograph, investigation report (the statement of a fire officer first discovered of the victim), photo, such as a log, seizure record (voluntary submission), seizure list, investigation report (the investigation of a fire-related object), fire-related photographs, fire-related photographs, field identification hearing of a fire case, internal plan of a fire site, records of a fire site photograph, and the appraisal report of the case, such as the continuation of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government;

1. The risk of repeating a crime as indicated in the judgment: (a) comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, each of the judgment, each of the following circumstances acknowledged by the reply to a request prior investigation, and the motive and background of the crime, the method and content thereof, the circumstances before and after the crime, the character and conduct of the defendant, the circumstances of the defendant, family relationship, etc., the defendant is deemed to pose a risk of recommitting a crime of murder. ① The defendant, without any justifiable reason, killed the victim in a violent manner, such as the statement in the judgment of the mother as stated in the judgment. ② The defendant has been punished two times as a crime of violence, six times a fine, and eight times a total of the crimes committed by

In particular, the Defendant, who was working at a livestock product distribution company on October 10, 209, was dissatisfied with the employee of the neighboring company and went to the said employee for work use, and was charged for committing the crime of attempted murder as a result of the crime of attempted murder. However, in the first instance court, the Defendant recognized the crime of attempted murder by denying the intention of murder (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). The appellate court acknowledged the Defendant’s attempted murder by recognizing the intention of murder in violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc.). After remanding the judgment of the Supreme Court, the appellate court rendered a dismissal of the prosecutor’s appeal against the judgment of the first instance court and confirmed that the judgment became final, thereby recognizing the Defendant’s violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a group, deadly weapon, etc. injury) (a group, etc. injury) as a result of evaluation of recidivism risk against the Defendant, and the Defendant’s family relation was higher than the Defendant’s family relation at 15th level.

Judgment on the Defendant and defense counsel's argument

1. Summary of the assertion

There was no fact that the Defendant saw the victim's timber or partly cut off. While the Defendant was posted at the time of the instant case, the Defendant sent luthization to the victim of the instant case, the victim was china, china, chip, chip, chip, chip, and the victim was used to play, and the victim was chiped and chiped, and the Defendant was chiped into the toilet. However, it seems only that the Defendant was chiped by the abolition, newspaper, clothes, etc. chip, which was accumulated on the part of the gas.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, the fact that the defendant murdered the victim by driving the victim, and put the victim at each place described in the judgment on purpose can be acknowledged.

① 피해자에 대한 부검결과 얼굴 부위에서 울혈과 점출혈, 기도점막에서 점출혈, 목앞쪽에서 피부 까짐과 피부 내 출혈, 아래턱 부위의 출혈, 입바닥 근육층과 목의 근육층 및 연조직층에서의 출혈, 목뿔뼈와 방패연골의 골절 등이 확인되었다. 이는 피해자의 목 부위에 외력이 작용되어 발생한 것으로, 경부압박질식사의 경우에 동반되는 소견이다 .

② From the center of the victim’s head, damage was found to have been accompanied by stuffed damage, i.e., franchisation, etc. on both parts of the head, i.e., e., franchisation on both parts of the head, i., e., e., e., f., e., g., f., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., g., e., g., e., e., e., g., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

It is also difficult to see the damage of shoulder bones and satis as a private person in light of the parts and degree of damage. Therefore, it is reasonable to exclude the possibility of death due to the shock that occurred in the process of the victim's appearance.

③ Since the Defendant recognized the fact that the victim died in the situation where the Defendant was only the Defendant, there is no possibility that the victim died due to a third party’s act or other accidents, etc. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the victim died due to a fire, even though the victim did not appear to have been able to have been fluored by mashing the sound within the victim’s flag, it is difficult to view that the victim’s blood was merely 1.1% of the fluorial concentration.

1. The fire of this case, in light of the trace of its burning, was generated independently at the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance, and the beesa, not by a chain of combustion. Unlike the Defendant’s assertion, if a fire occurs as a result of a fire, it must have the effect of spreading the flame and the wind, in order to cause the fire again. However, even if the windows of the front beesura at the time of the occurrence of the fire were installed, it is difficult to view that the windows of the front beesura at the time of the occurrence of the fire were all closed. Therefore, it is difficult to view that there was no combustibility in the ceiling, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the flame has increased to the extent that the fire might have been spread by the non-explosionation. Furthermore, even if the date of the examination, etc. was put to snow gas or gas, it is possible that the fire might have spread to the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the entrance of the be.

⑤ There are three kitchens in the instant kitchen at the instant kitchen. At the time of the occurrence of a fire, gas valves and three gas valves appears to have been opened at the time of the occurrence of a fire. However, goods such as smells and fluor, etc. on the gas bags were in a state, and there was no trace of cooking, and there was no special characteristics related to a fire caused by neglect of cooking at the kitchen. There was no separate cause of combustion such as short circuit.

6. On the other hand, after the occurrence of a fire, the Defendant and the victim arrived at the family.

B examined the front beer of the entrance door, and again opened a small door door door to the corridor and reported it to 119. B, after reporting 119, "the small door door door door door door," the victim was not the victim, and the defendant was the small door door from the inside side. B did not open the door door while opening the door door.In this way, the apartment management office staff F of the apartment house management office removed the small door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, but the defendant was unable to enter the house house. The defendant and the F, while the defendant and the scroke, tried to use the door door to the front door door and to extinguish the fire door to the middle door, and the defendant tried to escape from the door door and the door door.

On the other hand, G residing in the next house had a large sound at the place of occurrence of the instant case, and remains in the house uneasy and left the house, and as seen above, F, a staff member of the management office, and the Defendant, as seen above, observed all the f, and the situation in which the Defendant runs away. As alleged by the Defendant, in a case where the victim was used going beyond the back and the gas gas is cut to the end, it is natural to make a request for rescue or for extinguishing fire against the victim B, F, or 119, etc., and the Defendant’s particular measures are to be taken.

It is extremely difficult to understand that F is trying to flee out of the house without taking any action, rather than preventing F from entering the house, through a small door window.

Therefore, the defendant's and defense counsel's arguments are not accepted.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(2) of the Criminal Act (the point of surviving life, the choice of limited imprisonment) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of strawing building and fire prevention, and the choice of limited imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes concerning Murder of Lineal Ascendant prescribed by the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2 and Article 50 of the Criminal Act)

1. Issuing an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Articles 5(3), 9(1)1, and 9-2(1) of the Act on the Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

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

(a) Basic offence - Murder;

[Scope of Recommendation] Type 2 (General Mosing and homicide) Area of Special Leave (at least 15 years of imprisonment, at least 15 years of life)

[Special Person] A victim, a surviving victim, or no reflective (no simple denial of a crime) who is vulnerable to a crime

(b) Concurrent crimes - suspender buildings and fire prevention;

[Scope of Recommendation] General Criteria for Type 1 (Setting fire to Presenter Buildings, etc.)

[Special Person under Authority] The motive for committing a crime that may be criticized

C. The scope of final sentence due to the aggravation of multiple offenses: (a) imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years, and imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 20 years: (b) imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of this case is a fatal crime that murdered by a mother under the age of 81 who was living together as a minor issue without any special reason. The victim died without any specific resistance in the circumstances where the victim was unable to move back, and the defendant was satisfy in his residence to conceal his own crime; and (c) the victim’s body was partially damaged. In light of the details and contents of the case, and the method of the crime, etc., the crime is very poor. Nevertheless, the defendant was unable to repent or reflect his own crime; (d) even if there were many indirect facts and circumstances that make it possible for him to commit the crime; (e) the victim’s bereaved family members were unable to recover throughout his life and inflict emotional distress and mental pain; and (e) the victim appears to have never been punished against his bereaved family members.

However, it is not deemed that the Defendant was planned to kill the victim from the beginning, and the fact that the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime contingent, taking into account favorable circumstances, and taking into account the following circumstances, such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relation, environment, circumstances before and after the commission of the instant crime, and the sentencing conditions specified in the trial process, the punishment shall be determined as ordered within the scope of the above recommended sentence.

Judges Kim Young-hoon

Judges Jink-in

Judges Lee Jin-jin

A person shall be appointed.