(영문) 울산지방법원 2021.1.29. 선고 2020고합305 판결

The defendant is a third-class disabled person with physical disability who has a left bridge at the expense of the baby, and the spouse of the defendant is a citizen.

At around 19:00 on September 14, 2020, the Defendant discovered that the Defendant’s wife, in the event around 105 ○○ apartment complex near the Defendant’s residence, ○○ apartment complex near the Defendant’s 105-dong, has drinking alcohol with men, such as the victim’s strong damage (the name, the remaining, the age of 53), and entered the house to the Defendant’s wife. However, even though the Defendant’s wife refused it, the victim’s strong damage was discovered, and the Defendant was hicking the her bridge to the Defendant and the victim’s strong.

At around 22:12 of the same day, the Defendant saw that his wife and the victim's lecture, etc. were moving to a park in the apartment complex and continued the drinking place until then, and had the mind to kill the victim's lectures and their behaviors.

Therefore, the defendant, who was going to the residence of the above apartment No. 105 1407, 105 knife with the key of the vehicle, was parked in front of 105 knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

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

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act, selection of limited imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes of murder as prescribed in the crime of attempted murder of a victim with heavier punishment)

1. Confiscation;

1. The scope of applicable sentences under law: Imprisonment with prison labor for 5 years from 45 years;

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

(a) A primary crime (a) (a person who has committed murder on homicides);

[Determination of Punishment] homicide [Type 2] Ordinary homicide

[Special Aggravations] - Aggravations: serious injury

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

In the area of aggravation, five years of imprisonment to five years of imprisonment (the scope of sentence against the crime of attempted murder shall be reduced to 1/3, the lowest limit of the above sentence to 2/3, and the upper limit to 2/3, respectively; provided that the term "weapons" shall be reduced to 20 years or longer, 'at least' shall be reduced to '20 years', 'at least 'at least 'at least

[No person who is a general person]

(b) Second crime (homicide and attempted murder of a victim's forcibly damaged);

[Determination of Punishment] homicide [Type 2] Ordinary homicide

[Special Aggravations] - Aggravations: serious injury

【Recommendation Area and Scope of Recommendations】

[No person who is a general person]

(c) Scope of recommendations based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment for not less than five years (the upper limit of crimes 1 + the upper limit of crimes 1/2).

(d) Scope of recommended sentences that are modified by applicable sentences: Five to forty-five years of imprisonment (in cases where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentences, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentences);

3. The instant crime committed by the sentence is that the Defendant attempted to kill the victim's knife at the right lower part of the victim's knife with a knife and attempted to kill the victim's strong knife with an industrial knife and to kill the victim's strong knife and knife.

The risk and possibility of criticism are significant in light of the implements of the crime, the force, frequency, method, and consequence, etc. of the crime. If the police who received the report at the time of the crime did not dispatch, the defendant's crime is likely to have continued to occur more severe results. It seems that the victim was injured due to the crime in this case, as well as the degree of injury caused by the crime in this case, and that the victim was faced with considerable mental shock. In the case of the victim's gambling, the victim's coercion has reached the captain, and the victim's coercion was sent back to the hospital immediately after the crime, and did not conduct first aid and operation. If the victim was sent to the hospital immediately after the crime, the possibility of death seems to have been high. Nevertheless, the defendant was unable to agree with the victims until now, and it was almost impossible to recover from damage. It is inevitable to punish the victim because the nature and circumstances of the crime in this case are considerably good.

However, considering the favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant acknowledges his mistake and reflects, the fact that the crime is committed in the course of attempted crimes, the fact that the insult of disability seems to have been committed in a somewhat contingent manner while under the influence of alcohol, the criminal records of the same kind of violence have been punished by a fine several times, and the fact that the criminal records of the same kind of violence have no record of criminal punishment exceeding the suspension of execution, the punishment shall be determined as stated in the Disposition, by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc.

Judges

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jong-young

Judges Gindo-young

Judges' Binding

Note tin

1) The indictment is written as ‘24 cm', but it appears to be a clerical error of 25 cm in the record, so it shall be corrected ex officio (in the investigation record 83-85 pages).

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.2.18.선고 2015고합393 판결

-서울동부지방법원 2019.7.19.선고 2019고합30 판결

-창원지방법원 2014.11.27 2014고합210

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.07 2016고합297

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2020.05.27 2020노23