Defendant 1 and one other

Gumi-style (prosecution) and Kim Jong-chul (trial)

Attorney Cha Young-young (the national election for the defendant)

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of fifteen years, by a short term of seven years, and by imprisonment for twenty years, respectively.

1) Criminal facts

From September 2017 to September 2017, Defendants 1 met another male who was admitted to the Juvenile Reformatory between Defendant 2 and Defendant 2 in the Juvenile Reformatory between Korea and Korea, and Defendant 2 returned to the Republic of Korea after Defendant 2 was released.

Defendants came to know of the fact that Defendant 1 was pregnant four months around May 2018. At the time, Defendant 1 was pregnant, but Defendant 2 decided to raise the victim, regardless of whether Defendant 2 was her son or son, and two persons were living together.

Defendant 1 gave birth to the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (Musal omitted), and on November 6, 2018, the Defendants reported the birth of the victim to the her her friend, Defendant 1’s parent house to the victim, and around March 4, 2019, Defendant 1 divided the victim from the parent house to the Incheon Bupyeong-gu ( Address omitted).

From November 2018, Defendant 2 worked at the family of satisfaction, etc., Defendant 1 punished living expenses, and Defendant 1 raised the victim at the family of mixed children.

On March 4, 2019, the Defendants purchased Mari from Abean Ski on March 19, 2019, which was at Defendant 1’s parent house, additionally purchased Mari on March 19, 2019 and kid together with the victim.

After the decentralization, the Defendants were seriously disputed with Defendant 2’s frequent external gambling and complex relationship, Defendant 1’s suspicion and congested with Defendant 2, and the way and dissatisfaction due to Defendant 1’s raising the victim by negligence. In May 2019, the relationship between the Defendants became worse, and Defendant 2’s act of going out or staying outside by mixing only the victim. As such, Defendant 1, who was said to have become friendly with the victim’s house, was also forced to escape from the responsibility of bringing up the victim, beyond the responsibility of bringing up the victim.

1. Violation of the Child Welfare Act by Defendant 2 (child abandonment or neglect);

No person shall abandon a child under his/her protection and supervision or neglect the basic protection, rearing, medical treatment and education, including food, clothing and shelter.

At around 01:00 on May 17, 2019, the Defendant was serving the victim at the entrance of the front floor of the first floor where the Defendant’s parents are living. Around 01:00, the Defendant went the victim to the front floor of the front floor of the front floor, and the Defendant, by telephone, sent the victim to his parents by saying, “I would go to go to the front floor of the front floor because he has been living in the seat of the seat of the seat,” and the Defendant neglected the victim to care until 02:30 on the same day, while being aware of the fact that the victim was living alone. The Defendant continued to change the front floor password and did not inform the changed password after going to the front, and neglected the victim to go to the front of the front floor of 05:0 on the same day from around 00 to 09:20 on the same day.

Accordingly, the defendant abandons and abandons the victim.

2. Defendants’ co-principal conduct

(a) homicide;

The Defendants, around May 22, 2019, went to the ○○○○○○○○○○, in Bupyeong-gu, Incheon, Jung-gu around May 2, 2019, claimed that Defendant 2 met her friendship, etc., and Defendant 2 met with the victim’s house at around 18:00 on the same day, and Defendant 1, who became aware of the fact that Defendant 1 was negligent in the victim’s house, did not go to her friendship and drinking. The Defendants got into the other party’s behavior and did not look back around that time.

At the time, an infant under 7 months after her birth must drink 300ml of 300m from 3 to 4 hours, and she can see and see and see the wall, but she can neither her being mixed nor walk, and even if she is undergoing or attacking the victim, she cannot defend her from her life due to her life or her life, she cannot defend her from her life. Therefore, the Defendants, the parents of the victim, have to take protective measures, such as ensuring that she can take sufficiently nutrition of her, is isolated from her life, and have other care duty to care see or see she can do so on her own from her back to her life, and have to protect her health (such as her ear, etc.) in the environment where she can frequently protect her children and her surrounding her health (see, e.g., Civil Act).

Nevertheless, Defendant 2: (a) suspected of having been aware of the victim’s neither her son nor her son; (b) exceeded Defendant 1’s duty to protect and support the victim; (c) Defendant 1 took action without responsibility by Defendant 2; and (d) exceeded Defendant 2’s duty to protect and support the victim. As such, the Defendants did not return to one of the Republic of Korea without having the victim go alone at the home where 2 pets are located.

As a result, 10-liter 2 marith to spath and 2 math to spath to spath to spath and to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath, and 100-liter to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath from May 23, 2019. Nevertheless, Defendant 2 was spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to spath to s.

At around 17:00 on May 26, 2019, Defendant 1 entered the house, and the Doggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg.

Defendant 2: (a) around May 26, 2019, around 2019, around 200, Defendant 1 transferred the fact that the victim suffered her face and her face from Huban Ski by gratizing it; (b) around May 27, 2019, Defendant 1 went through text messages, Facebooks, and location tracking frat, and did not enter the house with her friendship and drinking, and there was no idea to enter the house more than 5: From May 26, 2019. Nevertheless, Defendant 2 entered the residence of 20:0 on May 27, 2019 to 3:0, without having the victim take necessary measures to 5:0 p.m., 200 to 9:0 p.m., Defendant 1 and 5:00 p.m., she did not know that she had her ski from 21:30 p.m., after leaving 200 p.m.

Ultimately, the Defendants returned home, one of the two persons after May 26, 2019, and recognized the fact that they did not look at the victim, and that the victim could die therefrom, the Defendants left the house where the victim was 2 maths of the pet dog for about five days from that time, thereby leaving the victim entirely neglected, thereby resulting in the death of the victim due to a high level of escape of water and an abandoned baby at any time from May 30, 2019 to May 16:12, 2019.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to murder the victim.

(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

Defendant 2 found a victim who died in the above residence on May 31, 2019, but did not take measures, such as reporting to the police around 22:00 on the same day, even though he/she discovered the victim’s death. Defendant 1 did not report to the police around 22:0 on the same day.

Furthermore, at around 18:00 on June 1, 2019, Defendant 2 moved the body of the victim to a paper box with clothes, booms, etc., and laid the box back to the front of the house, on the ground that Defendant 1 did not see the body of the victim. Defendant 1, at around 21:00 on the same day, she saw with Defendant 2 that the body of the victim is contained in the body of the victim. Defendant 1, along with Defendant 2, she took the words that Defendant 2 and she was in the house, and she took the place outside the house with Defendant 2, and she took place only his/her articles, such as “cats” in the house.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to leave the body of the victim by neglecting the body of the victim even though they have a duty to dispose of the body of the victim through proper funeral procedures.

Summary of Evidence

【Violation of the Child Welfare Act (Crime of Child Abandonment or Deserting)】

1. Defendant 2’s legal statement

1. Examination protocol of the suspect against Defendant 1 by the prosecution (Evidence No. 125);

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 4 (Evidence List 35)

1. A report on internal investigation (or on-site statement by a neighbor), a 112-report processing photographics, and a disposal slip (Evidence Nos. 13 through 15);

【Murder and Abandonment of Death】

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 5 and Nonindicted 6

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants (Evidence Nos. 124, 125, 132, 133, 160, 170, 174, 177)

1. Statement of witness by each prosecutor against Nonindicted 7 and Nonindicted 8 (Evidence Nos. 142, 143)

1. Each police statement against Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, and Nonindicted 12 (Evidence List Nos. 16,83-85)

1. The written statement by Nonindicted 2 (Evidence No. 179)

1. A report on internal investigation (the analysis of CCTV images of ○ apartment), May 31, 200, the video recording images of ○ apartment, and June 1, 200, the video recording images of ○ apartment;

1. 내사보고(참고인 공소외 5 상대 할퀸 상처가 있는 피해자 사진 확인), 변사자 상처 부위 사진(증거목록 순번 48, 49)

1. Investigation report (a suspect's attachment of one page notice, suspect 2's attempt to sell the cooling house and access to ○ apartment on May 27, 2019) (Evidence Nos. 131, 168 of the Evidence List);

1. Requests for analysis of each digital evidence, reports on internal investigation (verification of the contents of the message made to the accused mobile phone), investigation reports (Adjustment of the message made to the accused mobile phone) and the message among suspects [Attachment 56, 58, 60, 91, 93, 94];

1. Photographs of a legal history site (Serial Nos. 8 of evidence list);

1. Legal journals, written appraisals, written expert opinions, and written expert opinions (written additional evidence records);

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant 1: Articles 250(1), 30(a), 30(a) of the Criminal Act, Article 161(1), and 30(a) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant 2: Article 71(1)2 of the Child Welfare Act, Article 17 subparag. 6 of the same Act (the occupation of abandonment and neglect of a child, the choice of imprisonment), Article 250(1), Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of homicide, the choice of limited imprisonment), Articles 161(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act (the occupation of dead body abandonment)

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

(a) Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than the punishment (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)];

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act [the aggravation of concurrent crimes with the punishment heavier than the largest punishment (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above three crimes)];

1. Illegal punishment;

Defendant 1: Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act, Articles 4(2) and 2(1)1 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes

Judgment on the Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

A. In relation to the fact of murder, the Defendants neglected the victim’s neglect, and thereby, acknowledged the fact that the victim died. However, the Defendants did not anticipate the victim’s death and did not intend the death, and thus did not intend to do so, there was no intention of murder.

B. With respect to the abandonment of the body, the Defendants knew on May 31, 2019 that the body was dead, and did not specify how to hold the body for the purpose of the abandonment of the body of the victim, but did not leave the body for the purpose of the abandonment of the body.

2. Legal doctrine

A. As to murder by omission

A crime is normally committed by an active act, but may also be realized by omission that does not prevent the occurrence of a result. Article 18 of the Criminal Act provides, “When a person who, having a duty to prevent the occurrence of danger, or having caused the occurrence of danger by his own act, does not prevent the occurrence of danger, that person shall be punished according to the results of such danger, if he does not prevent the occurrence of danger.”

In the case of the so-called crime of omission, which generally commits a crime committed by omission, such as murder, the subject of the legal interest protected by the law is not capable of responding to the threat of infringement on the legal interest, and there is a legal duty to act to protect the legal interest from the threat of infringement. In addition, the person who omission has control over the situation that causes infringement on the legal interest from such protective status, and it should be easily prevented the occurrence of the result due to the performance of the duty to act, and the infringement on the legal interest arising from the omission is worth equivalent to that of infringement on the legal interest by the commission, and can be evaluated as an act of crime

The intent of a person liable to act is not necessarily required to have an intent to commit a crime of omission. It is sufficient for a person obligated to act in order to have a legal duty to prevent the occurrence of a consequence by performing his/her duty, and to recognize that he/she was unable to perform his/her duty by permitting and neglecting the occurrence of the result. The prediction or recognition of the person liable to act can be acknowledged as willful negligence, not only in a conclusive case but also in an uncertain case. In such a case, not only depends on the statement made by the person liable to act, but also on the ground of the duty to act, the form and risk of infringement of legal interest, the degree of control over the situation of infringement of legal interest of the person liable to act, the content and ease of the required duty to act, the motive and circumstance leading up to omission, the correlation between the type of omission and the result, etc. (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do689, Nov. 12, 2015).

(b) relating to abandonment of a corpse;

A crime of abandonment of a dead body is a legal interest protected by the legal, contractual, or religious peace and order of a deceased person. It is established in a case where a person who is obligated to take a funeral or care of a dead body under the law, contract, or sound reasoning leaves it alone or a person who is not obligated to take such measures leaves it alone without following religious and social custom (see Supreme Court Decision 98Do51 delivered on March 10, 1998).

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion regarding murdering

Before determining whether the Defendants were guilty or not, first of all, examined whether the Defendants neglected the victim as murder by omission. The victim did not have the ability to protect the victim by milling for 7 months after her death. The Defendants are legally obligated to protect and rear the victim as a person with parental authority. Measures that should have been taken by the Defendants to prevent the death of the victim are frightening the victim, and the Defendants can easily prevent the result of death, i.e., death, because they do not require any special ability to protect the victim as their parents, and even if the Defendants want to assist her parents or descendants, she could not die if she did so. Defendant 1’s pro-con prosecutorial office stated that Defendant 1 did not look at the victim, even if she did not look at the victim, she did not have a marbling act, and that she did not cause any harm to the victim by her own act, even if she did so, she did not cause any harm to the victim by her own act.

Therefore, in a case where the Defendants are admitted to have the intention of murdering for the victim, the establishment of a co-principal can be recognized.

However, as seen earlier, the intention of murder in the crime of omission does not necessarily require the intent of the purpose or planned crime as to the occurrence of the result. It is sufficient to anticipate that the occurrence of the result could be easily prevented by performing the duty of commission, and to recognize that the performance of the duty is not carried out by permitting and neglecting the occurrence of the result, and such recognition may be recognized by intention not only in a conclusive case but also in an uncertain case.

In light of the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the Defendants seems to have caused the death of the victim by leaving the victim alone alone while recognizing the possibility of the death of the victim at least in an indefinite manner and neglecting their responsibilities. Even if the Defendants did not have any intention to have the victim die, it is sufficient to recognize the Defendants’ intentional murder.

B. As to the assertion regarding the abandonment of the dead body

As long as the Defendants continued to leave the body in the house even though they knew of the death of the victim in the order around May 31, 2019, regardless of whether the Defendants attempted to bury the body of the victim in the camping out, the crime of abandonment of the body is established against the Defendants, who are obliged to leave the body or to keep the body in custody, as long as they continued to leave the body in the house.

The Defendants made a statement to the effect that May 31, 2019 was Franchising, and that on June 1, 2019, the following day was the end, and thus, the time was only the time to file a death report on the ordinary day. However, even though they knew the death of the victim, the Defendants continued to have his/her body moved to a gambling house and made him/her decomposed, or neglected to embling or corrupt the dead body, and thus, religious customs had been damaged as a social custom for the deceased (victim).

Defendant 1’s mother, around June 2, 2019, in light of the fact that Nonindicted 9, who was Defendant 1’s mother, was contacted by Defendant 1-friendly Nonindicted 5 to the effect that the victim was dead, and the Defendant 1 went to the Defendant’s present door password, etc. to visit the Defendants’ residence and find the dead body of the victim, and the Defendants attempted to conceal the victim’s death without reporting the fact to the police or notifying his family to the police, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants attempted to hold the victim’s funeral, but the procedure was delayed due to the lack of yellow dust.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant 1: 5 to 15 years of imprisonment (the maximum amount of imprisonment as a result of the aggravation of concurrent crimes shall not exceed 37 years, or the maximum amount of 15 years and the short-term 7 years of imprisonment shall not exceed 15 years, since he/she was a juvenile who

(b) Defendant 2: Imprisonment for 5 to 42 years; and

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

A. Defendant 1

The sentencing criteria shall not apply to the defendant who is a juvenile under the age of 19.

B. Defendant 2

1) Class 1 crime note 2 (Murder)

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

[Special Aggravationd Persons] Aggravationd: Crumar method of crime

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, 15 years of imprisonment or more,

2) 2nd crime [Violation of the Child Welfare Act (child abandonment or neglect)]

[Determination of Punishment] Arrest, Confinement, Abandonment, or Abuse 02. A. General Criteria (Type 2)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Where the degree of abandonment and abuse is serious [where the victim abandons the victim at a dangerous place (where the victim abandons the victim for seven months after his/her birth, considering the circumstances that the victim is an infant for seven months after his/her birth)];

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Aggravation, one year to two years of imprisonment

3) Scope of recommendations according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 15 years to imprisonment (the upper limit of crime 1 + the upper limit of crime 2)

(iv) Scope of the modified sentence according to the sentencing guidelines: 15 to 42 years of imprisonment (where the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing guidelines is inconsistent with the statutory applicable sentencing guidelines, it shall be in accordance with the statutory applicable sentencing standards).

3. Determination of sentence;

(a) Defendant 1: Imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of fifteen years, and seven years for a short term;

(b) Defendant 2: Imprisonment for 20 years;

We also examine the Defendants.

The suffering from the death of thirst, thirst, so that it can not be collected for more than three days is serious physical or mental pain beyond the ordinary degree in light of its strength and continuity in time. The Defendants’ criminal method causing the death of the victim is very harsh.

The Defendants, while playing at the bathing beach at the time the victim was suffering from malerer and thirst and suffering, went beyond their responsibility to protect the victim by simple contact between the Defendants. Furthermore, even after the victim was clearly aware of the death of the victim, the victims were living in the abandoned house with their body as they were left in the marel, etc., and the victims did not appear late after drinking the victim’s funeral ceremony prepared by their parents. The possibility of criticism against the Defendants is very high.

Even if the Defendants are responsible for their personal life, the Defendants were to take care of buckbucks age with their family, and the Defendants were also suspected of being in an environment where they had not been able to have been able to cared by their parents. However, the Defendants’ raising and raising her child is based on the Defendant’s decision that is a combination with the her parents. As the Defendants raised a conflict with each other, and eventually led to a growing conflict between the Defendants, and eventually, they reached the crime of this case, even though they committed the crime of this case, they were unable to care and decentralization with each other, and the Defendants did not have any crime. Therefore, it is inevitable to sentence the Defendants as to the crime of this case.

Examining the record of Defendant 2’s cell phone use, which was seized and analyzed by the police from Defendant 2, Defendant 2 appears to have accessed obscene videos (i.e., one-way “Ying-dong”) and cartoons (hereinafter “weet”) on June 1, 2019 immediately after the victim’s body was transferred to an abnormal person, and that Defendant 2 could not enter his house because Defendant 1 went through investigation by the investigative agency, and Defendant 2 was unable to know of the situation at the time of the crime before the investigator presented objective evidence, but it appears that the victim did not appear to have been present at the time of the crime, and that Defendant 2’s testimony or behavior was not proven to have been present at the time of the crime. In addition, Defendant 2’s examination of the fact that Defendant 2’s testimony or behavior was not presented to the victim’s memory immediately after the victim was transferred to the victim’s body, but it appears that Defendant 2 did not appear to have been present at the time of the crime.

In addition, Defendant 2 was already subject to a disposition of juvenile protection cases due to several larcenys and violence crimes, and in 2017 and 2018, there were the records of being sentenced to a fine on one occasion due to violent crime, special larceny, etc., and two times of suspended sentence of imprisonment. Defendant 1, along with the circumstances that Defendant 2 is a juvenile with no criminal history, shall determine the sentence as ordered by comprehensively taking into account the various sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, including the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, the means and consequence of the crime, etc.

Judges Song-sung (Presiding Judge)

1) The Defendants appropriately revised part of the facts charged to the extent that it does not impede the Defendants’ exercise of their right to defense.

2) The crime of abandonment of dead bodies typically accompanied with murder does not comply with the criteria for handling multiple crimes, and it is treated as one sentencing factor (general person) in the sentencing criteria for murder.