2014 Gohap436 homicide

2014Gohap594 (Consolidation) Special escapes

2014. Attachment orders (Joints) 19

Persons whose attachment order is requested;

Yellow ○ (60 years old, South)

Kim Jong-jin (Lawsuits) and Lee Jin (Trial)

Attorney Shin Young-young (National Election)

April 16, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

To the person against whom the attachment order is requested, the attachment of an electronic tracking device shall be ordered for 20 years.

Criminal facts and the facts constituting the attachment order

【Criminal Power】

On January 19, 2012, the defendant and the respondent for an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as "defendants") were sentenced to two years of imprisonment for the crime of injury at the Seoul Western District Court on January 19, 2012, and completed the execution of the above sentence in the second prison of the Gyeongbuk Branch on January 12, 2013. On March 20, 1996, the Seoul Central District Court sentenced 12 years of imprisonment for murder, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court and completed the execution of the sentence nine times of imprisonment.

[Criminal Facts]

“Murder” 2014 Gohap436, 1. Murder

Around July 2014, the Defendant became aware of the victim ○○○○ (50 years of age) (hereinafter “A”) operating the said restaurant while coming to and going to a customer in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Guro-gu. From August 2014, the Defendant came to have a sexual intercourse with the victim, and the Defendant was more frequent, and it was thought that there was a considerable close relationship with the victim. However, the Defendant heard the victim that even if the victim had been informed of the house several times, the Defendant could not be informed of the her house from the victim so that it could not be known as the her house, and the victim might be close to other male customers who come to find the said restaurant, and the victim would be doubtful not only with other male customers than the Defendant.

On September 21, 2014, at around 00: B, the Defendant was living together with the victim at the digital location of Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul. At the same time, the Defendant was aware of a funeral service. In the future, the Defendant was aware of the horses such as Mah, Mah, Mahne, and Mah that he had been living together with another male, and he was able to get out of the victim's wall due to the difference in the right side of the victim's body by getting back of the dives ( approximately 30 to 40 mm) which had been living together with the other male at the site of the diversing construction. The Defendant continued to get out of the victim's body by getting out of the dives of the dives and the bones of the victim's body caused damage to the victim's body by getting out of the dives and the bones of the victim's body.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim.

“ 2014 Highest 594

2. Attempted special escape;

The defendant is confined number 1** * * is detained in prison in Seoul Southern House 2014.

11. 20. 10: around 40, the Seoul Southern Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court No. 406), located in the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan New Month, waiting in the waiting room of the defendant in the custody of the defendant, and the number of the defendant was opened, and the correctional officer went to the custody of the △△△△△△△△△△, while moving to the defendant's seat, the knife the shoulder of the above Yellow △△△△△△△△△ was pushed off with the shoulder of the defendant, and opened the door to the opening of the court room to prevent the entrance from coming to the opening of the court room. While the above court guards and the correctional officers tried to flee once with the defendant, the court guards and the above court guards attempted to escape from the bridge of 00 on one-time basis with the direction of the correctional officers and the court guards, they did not go to the direction of the correctional officers and the court guards.

Accordingly, the defendant, who was detained by the law, tried to commit violence to a person and escape, but did not bring about such intention, but did not commit an attempted crime.

[The facts leading to the attachment order] The Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or a heavier punishment due to murder as stated in the judgment below, and the Defendant committed murder as stated in paragraph (1) again after the completion or exemption of the execution of the sentence.

Summary of Evidence

Omission

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (the purpose of murder, the choice of life style as stated in the following sentencing) and Articles 149, 146, and 145(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of attempted special escape)

1. Punishment of concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as punishment is more severe than punishment is selected for life for murder, no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Orders to attach an electronic tracking device;

Judgment on the assertion of counsel as to Article 9(1)1 and Article 5(3) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders

A defense counsel asserts that the defendant's defense counsel is class 4 of the hearing disability and therefore falls under "the deaf-mute as prescribed in Article 11 of the Criminal Act." According to the statement of the copy of the welfare card against the defendant, it is recognized that the defendant is in a state of hearing disability 4, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is in a state of hearing disability. Therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant is "the deaf-mute as prescribed in Article 11 of the Criminal Act" and therefore, it is difficult to see that the defendant is "the deaf-mute as prescribed in Article 11 of the Criminal Act." The defense

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

Life imprisonment

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

(a) homicide;

[Determination of Type] homicide, Type 2 (General Mosing homicide)

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd - cruel method of commission of crime, and no violation

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Aggravation

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years

(b) The standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years or imprisonment for not less than 15 years (the lowest limit for concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act between the crime of homicide for which the sentencing criteria are set and the crime of special escape for which no sentencing guidelines are set shall be based on the lower limit of the scope of sentence

3. Determination of sentence and reasons therefor; and

(a) Sentence: Life imprisonment;

B. The Defendant, prior to the instant case, was sentenced to 12 years of imprisonment for committing a crime of murdering a spouse by inducing the spouse’s human life in prison, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term of 12 years. Nevertheless, the Defendant suspected of sexual intercourse with the victim ○○○, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for several times, and was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a limited term of imprisonment. Nevertheless, the Defendant suspected of sexual intercourse with the victim ○○○, and was humping the victim’s head from the victim and killed the victim by taking back the victim’s head from the victim’s body with prison labor. This is a circumstance to show how much the Defendant was aware of another’s suffering and that the Defendant had not been trained through a limited term of imprisonment.

In regard to the crime of murder of this case, the Defendant murdered the victim by treating the victim’s head at a cruel manner. The victim’s death was caused by serious pain, and the bereaved family of the victim was also faced with the mind that the victim could not be cured due to the instant crime. On the other hand, the Defendant, upon being investigated as the crime of murder after the instant case, tried to know of the victim’s sexual relation even if he was committed against the victim’s sexual relation. Furthermore, the Defendant was prosecuted for the crime of murder of this case on the ground that he could not easily understand that “after being charged with the instant murder, the Defendant attempted to flee in the courtroom on the ground that he could not easily understand the victim’s bereaved family and attempted to assault the public official. In light of these circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is against the serious nature of his criminal act.

In addition, in addition to the criminal records of the crime of murder as above, the defendant thought that he would disregard himself as a result of refusal of sexual intercourse from a woman in resistant relations, and caused injury to the above woman requiring six weeks' medical treatment. If the defendant grants again to return to society in the future, there is a lot of possibility that he will be able to harm the other party to the sexual intercourse in the future.

Therefore, at the same time, the defendant is permanently isolated from our society at the same time in order to ensure that the victim who has lost his/her life and his/her bereaved family members are able to fully attend the crime of this case and reflect his/her wrongness.

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

The presiding judge's seat

Judges Kim Jae-in

Judge Lee Ho-hoon