2020No1150 Ba1150 homicide, existing structure or fire prevention (a recognized crime, name, structure, fire, death or injury)

A

Both parties

On the floor, the appeal shall be dismissed, and the appeal shall be dismissed.

Attorney Nana (Korean National Assembly)

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2020Gohap71 Decided June 15, 2020

October 29, 2020

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for twenty-five years.

One copy (Evidence No. 1), two plastic copies (L. 2), and one copy (Evidence No. 3) shall be confiscated from the accused.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant

The punishment sentenced by the court below (21 years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

(b) Prosecutors;

The above-mentioned sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

The fact that the defendant recognized the crime of this case and reflects his mistake, and that he voluntarily attended the investigation agency late later is favorable to the defendant.

On the other hand, human life has an absolute nature that can not be disposed of without permission, and it is impossible to recover damage in any way. Thus, an act of infringing it is not possible to use it. As a result of the defendant's crime, the victim might not only have taken away his native life, but also have caused pain and extreme fear during the process leading to death, and the defendant committed the crime in a planned manner, such as preparing for the criminal implements in advance, and it is not good that the defendant committed the crime in this case by finding out his mind that he is not superior among the directors of the association. Furthermore, the defendant was able to prevent the victim from leaving the office immediately after the crime, from leaving the office door of the first place office so that he can no longer get out of the office. After leaving the office, the victim was removed from the office door of the victim's body, and after leaving the office, the victim's body was not able to be criticized until now.

In addition, in full view of all the factors of sentencing as shown in the original judgment and the arguments of the original court, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and consequence of the crime, etc., the above sentence imposed by the lower court is too uneasible and unfair. Therefore, the prosecutor’s allegation of unfair sentencing is with

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the prosecutor's appeal is well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again.

[Reasons for multi-use Judgment]

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence acknowledged by this court is the same as the relevant column of the lower judgment, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

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

The latter part of Article 164(2) and Article 164(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Reasons for sentencing

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: Seven years to thirty years; and

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

[Determination of Punishment] Fire-Fighting Crimes ; Fire-Fighting Injury/Death, such as a suspender building, etc. [Type 3] Fire-Fighting Injury/Death, etc. such as a suspender building (in the case of intentional death)

[Special Convicts] Reduction element: Self-denunciation

Aggravations: Cruel Crime Acceptance Act

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Aggravation, Imprisonment with labor for more than 15 years

【Scope of Recommendations as amended in accordance with the applicable sentence】

From 15 to 30 years of imprisonment (in case that the upper limit of the range of sentence recommended by the sentencing criteria is inconsistent with the upper limit of the applicable sentences in law, it shall be in accordance with the upper limit of the applicable sentences in law).

3. Determination of sentence;

The sentence shall be determined as ordered in consideration of various sentencing conditions examined in the above '2 and judgment'.

The presiding judge, the Gu judges;

Judge semi-Decree

Judge Choi Sung-sung