Defendant

Beneficiary and Beneficiary

Normal competition of judicial trainees;

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

On September 10, 1981, the defendant was sentenced to 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at night in the Seoul District Criminal Court, 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor in the Busan District Court on July 9, 1984, 10 years of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Suwon District Court on July 10, 1986, 2 years of suspended sentence for 1 year of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny at the Daejeon District Court on June 7, 1996, 2 years of suspended sentence for 2 years of imprisonment with prison labor for 2 years of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny) at the Daejeon District Court on April 27, 2001, and completed the execution of the sentence at the Daejeon Correctional District Court on August 25, 2008.

On February 11, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 02:40, at the 5 funeral hall of the Yancheon University Hospital Hospital located in 23-20, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Dongcheon-gu, Seocheon-gu; (b) taken away the crebs behind the Nonindicted Party of the victim, who was diving, and attempted to take the knife the knife in the back part of the victim, thereby taking the knife the knife into the back part of the victim’s knife, and attempted to take the knife the knife by taking the knife into the back part of the back part of the victim;

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the Nonindicted Witness

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The police statement of the Nonindicted Party

1. Seizure records;

1. Results of CCTV verification;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Each photograph;

The defense counsel asserts that the defendant should not be punished in accordance with Article 10(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act, or be mitigated as necessary, because the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the crime of this case, because he was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

Therefore, according to the result of the examination of evidence, even though the defendant was found to have received a certain amount of alcohol at the time of the above crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant had no or weak ability to discern things due to it, so the above assertion by the defense counsel is rejected.

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 5-4 (5) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, Article 329, and Article 342 of the Criminal Act.

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Articles 35 and proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act

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

Judges Yang Jae-ho