2010Gohap387 Murder and homicides

Kim 11 (940000 - 10000) - Non-career

Residence Nam-si 00

[Reference domicile] Seoul 00

Gabrey

Attorney Kim Jong-young (Korean National Assembly Line)

April 2012, 201

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of ten years and a short term of ten years.

Criminal facts

From September 30, 2010, the Defendant had resided together with the Defendant’s Ma22 (18 years old), a woman-friendly job offering 33 (16 years old), and the Defendant’s friendly job offering 33 years old Kim 00 (16 years old, 16 years old), at the underground 3rd room in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, 83-7 (18 years old), Ma22.

1. homicide;

On October 11, 2010: 22:40, the Defendant collected the lower end of the studio in the said studio in the laund, and 33 in the laund, and viewed the SBS drama’s “self-ray” in the laund, while drinking alcohol with the victim, at around 23:40, both 33 and 40, left the said studio as soon as possible, and left the said studio in order to see the urine. The Defendant followed the Defendant, who was married to the said studio as soon as possible, followed the Defendant.

On October 12, 2010, the Defendant 20: around 20, the Defendant 20: (a) sited on the left-hand edge of the public toilet entrance of the said park, and waldddd with the victim, and walddd with the victim for a minor horse, such as the issue of residing in the above studio while smoking tobacco together with the victim; (b) the victim, who was unable to wald with the Defendant’s arms, walddddd the victim to kill the victim by breaking the Defendant’s arms and balking it, and let the victim die in waldd with the victim on the spot.

Accordingly, the defendant murdered the victim.

2. Concealment of carcasses;

On October 12, 2010: at around 00, the Defendant: (a) moved the victim’s body at the same place as the above park’s house electricity and elementary school fences; (b) was flaged by flaging fallen leaves around the park; (c) was flaged by flaging it on the body; and (d) was flaged by flaging it on the body; and (e) was in the nature (flag, 45cm, 30cm in length) and reporting that was adjacent to the said house

Blue (22 cm in length, 10 cm in width) laid above the body part of the body.

Accordingly, the defendant concealed the body.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court;

1. Each legal statement of the witness 33, Ma22, Ma44, Ma55

1. Each protocol of examination of the accused accused suspect Nos. 2 and 3 times;

1. Each police statement made against this 66, current 77, and this 88

1. Each investigation report (specific investigation on the date of occurrence of the case, on-site inspection, additional investigation for a witness, and genes of cigarette butts;

Manyang-si, the Statement of Opinions of the Prime Hospital located in Namyang-si, and one-ma, one-day, the Central Council:

T CCTVs, uniforms above and below the victim’s death

1. A written diagnosis of death, request for criminal analysis of other death cases, response to identification assessment results (friendly confirmation);

Family relation certificate (652 pages 652 of investigation records)

1. On-site identification records of murder cases, and results of digital evidence analysis of murder cases (Handbaths currently used as of the suspect);

Handphones and victim Handphones

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act / [The purpose of murder and the choice of limited imprisonment, however, the upper limit of punishment is the former Criminal Act (2010).

4. A decision made pursuant to the main sentence of Article 42 of the Act on 15. 15. 15. 15 years of imprisonment

C] Article 161 (1) of the Criminal Act (a point of harboring a corpse)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

applicable to both concurrent crimes (within the scope of the sum of the long-term punishments of the above two crimes)

1. Illegal punishment;

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

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Judgment on the primary argument (the entire innocence)

A. Summary of the argument

The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant only fighting with the victim on the date of the instant case, and that there is no fighting with the victim's body or fighting with the body of the victim.

B. Determination

(1) In a criminal trial, the conviction shall be based on a certificate of probative value with which a judge is able to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to form such a conviction, even if there is doubt that the defendant is guilty, it shall be determined as the interest of the defendant, but such conviction should not be formed by direct evidence, unless it is in violation of the rules of experience and logic, and it may be formed by indirect evidence. Even if indirect evidence does not have a complete probative value as to the facts of crime individually, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the whole evidence, if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the facts of crime, and if it is deemed that there is a comprehensive probative value as to the facts of crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do4392, Nov. 27, 2001; 2008Do575, Mar. 27, 2008).

(2) According to the above evidence, the following circumstances are recognized.

(A) The Defendant led to the confession of the instant crime at the police and the prosecutor’s office, and submitted a written opinion and counter-written statement that recognizes the loan of the instant crime to the government-funded district court senior branch court (hereinafter “high support”) which was the legal cause prior to the transfer (hereinafter “high support”), but the Defendant started to deny the instant crime at this time in this court, and accordingly, it was impossible to deny the contents of each police interrogation protocol and deny the authenticity of each police interrogation protocol at the first prosecutor’s office’s office’s interrogation protocol, thereby making it impossible to use each of the above interrogation protocol as evidence of guilt.

On the other hand, the defendant recognized that his father and senior mother who found himself as the police station had committed the crime of this case. At the time of the class of the senior support, the defense counsel, who was in charge of the defendant's public defender at the time of the class of the senior support, also tried to commit the crime of this case, but the defendant was able to be caused by negligence.

In this Court, the defendant's interest in the police officers in charge at the time of the police investigation due to negligence, etc.

The court stated to the effect that the defendant could be forced to commit violence, intimidation, or confession, and that the atmosphere of the prosecutor's room was not made to make a false confession even at the time of the prosecutor's investigation.

( 나 ) 피고인이 증거로 함에 동의한 검찰 제2회 피의자신문조서의 진술기재에 의하 면 , 피고인은 검찰 제2회 조사 당시 검사가 양형에 관한 사항을 조사한 후 더 하고 싶 은 말이 있으면 하라고 하자 , 하고 싶은 말이 있다고 한 후 " 제가 00 ( 피해자 ) 목 졸랐 을 때 걔가 끙하고 소리 냈을 때 저는 그 때 걔 사체 옮겼는데요 , 코에서 거품 나오고 숨을 쉬고 있었던 것 같애요 . 그리고 그 상태에서 돌을 몸에 올려놓았던 것 같아요 . " 라 고 진술한 사실을 인정할 수 있는바 , 위 진술은 피고인이 자발적으로 행한 것으로서 그 진술 경위에 비추어 볼 때 신빙성이 있다 할 것이다 .

C) The Kim 44, who was the Defendant’s her East capital reduction, appeared as a witness in this court, and the Defendant was confined to a governmental prison in this case, and the contents of the indictment of this case were all of the facts. However, the Defendant stated that the Defendant was in a serious decision to deny the crime while discussing the countermeasures against the trial of this case along with the her East capital reduction. The witness Kim 55 also stated that there was little little reason to believe that the Defendant was aground for shots after taking out the victim’s timber.

As to the background leading up to the reversal of confession in this court, the Defendant stated that the prosecutor started to deny the crime from the defect that the prosecutor could not at the prosecution’s stage due to negligence. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant submitted a written opinion that most of the instant crimes were committed in high support even after the Defendant was prosecuted for murder, it is difficult to believe the Defendant’s above statement.

Rather, as seen earlier Kim 44’s statement, the Defendant decided to deny the crime and reversed his confession from that time while discussing the countermeasures against the reduction of the amount of imprisonment and the instant judgment. Considering the timing of reversal, deeming the same is more likely to be more true than the time of reversal.

D) According to each description and image of the field identification records and investigation report on the murder case prepared by the police (written opinion of the National Assembly member of the Gyeong-dong, the investigation record is less than 293 pages, and on October 27, 2010), six of the upper margin of the front cover on the left side of the photograph (the investigation record is less than 293 pages, taken on October 27, 2010), which is the crime day of this case, remains clear and some of them remain clear even after two weeks or more have passed from October 12, 2010, which is the crime day of this case, from the length of 10mm, 7mm, and the defendant, at the time of taking the above photograph from the police station, stated that the victim s/he added the front cover on his left side at the time of taking the above photograph of the victim's s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s/ s.

In light of the above facts and the fact that the defendant's body recognizes the fighting with the victim, the above fighting room was caused by the victim on the day of this case, and it is difficult to say that the above string of the above string remaining well even after the two weeks passed, it is difficult to say that the string of the string, even if based on the land, is a flag, or that there was a deep string body to the extent that the hack was flag, and that the hack was flag.

In this court, the Defendant stated that the Defendant only got the victim's arms to be pushed off, while the investigative agency stated that he had been aware of the victim's arms. However, the above upper part of the Defendant's arms, which occurred in the process of the victim's arms to get out of the Defendant's hand, seems to have occurred in the process of leaving the Defendant's arm's length, so that the Defendant's arm's length could be removed from the Defendant's hand. It is more well-known in that form.

E. On the other hand, the victim's body was found to be far away from the place where the victim's body was found, but the location was 1.4 meters away from the end of the body, and the genes recovered from the above cigarette butts were found to coincide with the defendant's genes.

The location where the victim's body is discovered is the fence of the chemical middle school and the studs of the corner of the light neighborhood park, and the body is found to have a serious malodor in light of the degree of corruption, but the two weeks after the death was found. The park manager cleaning each day a park is a rare body to the extent that he does not clean up until the place. If the defendant's body is not opened for concealing the body, it is difficult to easily explain that the Defendant was found to have smoked tobacco at that place.

As seen below, if the Defendant did not conceal the victim’s neck and conceal the dead body, the Defendant carried out an abnormal speech and behavior that is difficult to explain.

The two 33 found the Defendant on the toilet wall in the park after the lapse of one to two hours from the time the Defendant left the toilet with the Defendant and the victim left, and the Defendant asked both 33 and 33 about where she her (the Defendant) and her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her. D. The her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her she was coming. This is because he was

When the defendant was living in the toilet after being pushed the victim as the defendant was living in the past, the defendant thought that he was living in the room, and in ordinary cases, the defendant would be able to find out the whereabouts of the victim first. However, the defendant not only made a clear false statement to 33 that he was aware that he was living in the victim, but also did not have any interest in the whereabouts of the victim later. If the victim is living in both 33 and 33, the defendant's false statement will be turned out immediately, and therefore, the defendant's false statement will be turned out immediately, and it is difficult for the defendant to find any reason different from the defendant's false statement.

In addition, it is found that a finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite finite, and if the Defendant was not a finite finite finite finite finite, it is difficult to understand that finite finite finite finite finite

G) The Defendant’s body and body of the victim were found to be the body of the victim immediately next to the place where the body was fighting and the victim was killed at the same place. However, if the victim got beyond the body of the defendant, the defendant would not have the mother if he was satisfy and the body of the defendant was seriously harmed to the extent that he would have lost the mind. However, the Defendant did not have any specific explanation about the reaction or happiness of the victim after being satisfy, and it is difficult to understand that the Defendant was 30 minutes or more at the outdoor toilet, and that he did not have any specific explanation about the reaction or behavior of the victim after being satisfy. The Defendant fighting with the victim on the day of the instant case, and the victim was found to have been dead by the third party at the same place. Thus, it is extremely exceptional that the victim was killed by the third party at the same place, and it is difficult to consider the core situation of the victim and the defendant's body at the time when satisfy.

H. On October 25, 2010, the Defendant discovered the body of the victim and sent a text message to the victim on October 25, 2010: around 50 50, the Defendant sent a suicide and a text message to the victim on October 20, 201.

(i) The defense counsel changed that it was difficult for the defendant to transport the body or move the body in the condition of his arms at the time. However, according to the defendant's statement in the investigation agency of both 33, it was true that the defendant was faced with the accident, but it was not easy for the defendant to unfold him and live there on October 1, 2010. Thus, even though it was somewhat difficult for the defendant to resist or move the body on the crime of this case, the crime of this case, which was about 10 days thereafter, was committed, it is not impossible.

Even after the date of the instant crime, the Defendant had resided in the studio of M22, which had been residing at the time after the date of the instant crime, and the defense counsel also raised an doubt about this part. However, if the Defendant left the studio of Ama22 after the commission of the crime, it is sufficient to view that the Defendant resided in the studio for the purpose of avoiding such doubt.

(j) It is somewhat difficult to understand the fact that there is no obvious motive for the Defendant to murder the victim, and that there is no explanation about the victim's panty discovered by the body of the body of the victim about the panty of the victim.

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant, even at ordinary times, has the nature of a multi-dryr such as a species in which he makes a sudden color and makes a painting, and that there is a brutal face, such as ma22, both men's Ma22, both men's 33 and 33, even before committing the crime of this case, there is a scrutal face, such as continuous noise even though Ma22, and the Defendant continued to do so. In light of the fact that the Defendant was in the first time of the crime of this case, there is a possibility that he murdered the victim by breaking the victim at the end of the scrut and body fighting with the victim, which is not good.

Of course, the evidence that the victim's panty was off can not be explained to the effect that the above evidence alone is not sufficient, and there is no problem with the investigation investigation into the victim. However, it is considered that the victim did not make a false statement in order to conceal his or her another crime, or that there was a separate motive that caused the murder, and it does not appear as a circumstance to the extent that the defendant's homicide itself is doubtful.

(k) Although both 33 and Ma22 are raising questions about the possibility of truth-finding, the defendant and his defense counsel have a reasonable and consistent statement from the investigative agency to this court in both cases, it is difficult to find any other circumstances to suspect the credibility of the statement, and in the case of Ma22, it is difficult to find a direct connection with the crime of this case.

C. Sub-determination

Examining these circumstances in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant and his defense counsel cannot accept the aforementioned assertion, as it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant murdered the victim as stated in the facts charged.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive assertion (Partial innocence)

The defendant and his defense counsel argued to the effect that even if the defendant saw the victim's neck after the defendant saw the victim's neck, the defendant saw the homicide with the intention of committing the crime of murder, which only constitutes the method of committing the crime of murder and did not have the intent to commit the crime of concealing the body. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier and the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence revealed earlier, it is difficult to see that the act of covering the victim's shots with the shots so that the body of the victim can be seen as having been caused by the crime of murder. At the time, the defendant was not aware of the death of the victim, even if the defendant did not know that the death of the victim was caused by the shots, and it seems that the defendant had been covered by the shots to conceal it in order to conceal it on the premise that it would be immediately dead, the above assertion is also rejected.

Grounds for sentencing

The crime of this case appears to be an contingent crime that occurred at the end of a minor dispute, and the defendant was merely 16 years old at the time of committing the crime, and there may be room to deem that there was a possibility of future improvement. In addition, there is no reason to take into account such as the fact that the defendant was divorced by his parents, and his father did not have any memory as to her mother, and that he appeared to have suffered many difficulties during the growth process, such as getting salved from his mother, even though her father remarrieds after her death, etc.

However, human life is of absolute nature and dignity which cannot be disposed of without permission, and it cannot be used for any reason. The victim's attempt to transfer his/her own life to 33 and 22, one of his/her own life, merely 16 years old age, without putting his/her life in mind and has lost his/her hidden fear and suffering. The defendant seems to have committed this extreme crime and concealed the body of the victim, and then there was no way to do so. The defendant seems to have committed this serious crime, and even if he/she did not want to transfer his/her own life to 16 years old age, he/she cannot be punished in light of the fact that he/she was sentenced to punishment by the defendant, such as the fact that he/she did not help the victim's age even though he/she did not repent his/her body until she made the last statement.

Judge Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the presiding judge

Judges boarding and leaving the court

Judge Lee Associate-hoon