2013 Gohap497 Murder

○○

Lee Jong-young (Institution of Prosecution) and Maternity (Public Trial)

Attorney Soh Dong-dong

January 10, 2014

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

The defendant shall be ordered to provide community service for 120 hours.

Criminal facts

Around December 2012, there was a conflict between the defendant and the victim Lee Dong-dong resident and the defendant around the same Dong-dong resident, and the defendant around December 2012, 201, who is the victim, was in conflict between the bee, without his own permission.

On May 8, 2013: Around 00, the Defendant had been able to kill the victim by causing to killing the victim the victim by taking advantage of the handling of dials from the victim, while the Defendant had been talked with the victim for the said reasons.

On May 8, 2013, at around 00:0, the Defendant injected the pesticide "Damelon, in the office of the Defendant at Daejeon Dong-dong, Daejeon ○○dong-dong*** the Defendant’s house at the veterinary hospital before 2 to 3 years," and then injected the above pesticide into small 2 soldiers by inserting the said injection kn with the knife lid that the Defendant purchased at the time of drinking, and then inserting the said pesticide into the small knife lid, and then in the same time * * * * 2 in the dry field that the victim cultivated.

However, on May 11, 12: 51 of the same year, the victim, who discovered the instant sub-speak, had been aware that the instant sub-speak was not influence but influent. However, there was a suspicion that the instant sub-speak was not transparent.

It was impossible to kill the victim due to the failure to do so, and the victim was attempted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and the selection of punishment for the crime;

Articles 254 and 250(1) of the Criminal Act

2. Attempted mitigation;

Articles 25(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

3. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing)

4. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating Conditions among the Reasons for Sentencing)

5. Social service order;

Article 62-2 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 59 of the Act on Probation, etc.

Reasons for sentencing

【Scope of Punishment】 Imprisonment with prison labor from March to July

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

[Special Mitigation] No person who is not injured, and no person shall be punished.

[General Mitigation] Voluntary Maternity

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment of 1 year and 3 months to 7 years and 6 months ( Imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months to 12 years), which is a special mitigation area

as a crime of murder and murder, the lower limit of sentence scope is 1/3, the upper limit is 2/3, respectively.

to reduce, and the upper and lower limit shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentences.

【Suspension of Execution】

[Main Reference Grounds] Non-existence of Punishment (Preliminary Grounds)

[Reasons for General Witnesses] The social relationship is clear, serious reflective, and there is no criminal record of a stay of execution or more (esteem)

Due cause)

[Determination of Sentence] Two years of imprisonment, three years of suspended execution

The defendant tried to kill the victim by inserting highly toxic agrochemicals into a small-scale disease, and allowing the victim to brush the disease. In light of the fact that the victim could have lost his/her brue or her brue and other severe risks, the defendant's responsibility is not weak.

However, the crime of this case was committed in the attempted crime, and the victim was not injured, the victim was not punished, the defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment other than twice a fine, the defendant committed the crime of this case contingently, the defendant committed the crime of this case, and the fact that the defendant reflects his own fault, etc., shall be determined by the same punishment as the order in consideration of the circumstances favorable to the defendant.

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

Judges Ahn Byung-chul

Judges Hong-han

Judges Jeon Soo-soo