2016 Gohap515 homicide

2016. Before maturity25 (Joint Attachment Orders)

A

Park Jong-man (prosecutions) and a motion pen (Trial)

Attorney B (Korean National Assembly)

October 21, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for life.

Seized evidence 1 and 2 shall be confiscated, respectively.

A person subject to an application for attachment order shall be ordered to attach an electronic tracking device for 20 years. The matters to be observed, such as the attached Form, shall be imposed on the person subject to the application.

Criminal facts and the facts constituting the request for attachment order

【Criminal Power】

On September 19, 2008, the defendant and the requester for attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") sentenced seven years to imprisonment with prison labor for murder at the Busan District Court, and completed the execution of the sentence on June 20, 2015.

【Criminal Facts】

The defendant, who lost his sex function as a male in the second half of the year, was living together with female people, such as wearing a flat brue, cremation, raising head, etc., at the national event site, each of them performed a public performance or sold goods in the market.

피고인은 2016. 6.경 부산 동구 C에 있는 피고인의 집에서 동거하던 남자와 다툰 후 화가 난 동거남이 집을 나가자 허전한 마음에 술을 마시고, 성관계를 하고 싶다는 생각이 들어 그 상대방을 찾기 위해 여장을 하고 D역 광장으로 나갔다. 피고인은 마침 D역 광장 벤치에서 술을 마시고 있던 피해자 E(53세)과 F(44세))을 만나 같이 술을 마시면서 일상적인 이야기를 나누다 말쑥한 차림의 피해자 E에게 호감이 가 그와 성관계를 하기로 하고 집으로 같이 가기로 하였으나 이를 눈치 챈 피해자 F도 같이 가겠다고 우겨 피해자들을 모두 피고인 집으로 데리고 왔다. 피고인은 집에서 피해자들과 같이 술을 마시다 주방에서 칼을 이용하여 안줏거리를 만들던 중 술에 만취한 피해자들이 서로 피고인과 먼저 성관계를 하겠다면서 싸워 이를 말렸으나 말을 듣지 않고 오히려 자신에게 욕설하자 화가 나 이들을 살해하기로 마음먹었다.

이에 피고인은 2016. 6. 28. 03:10 경3) 피고인의 집에서, 안줏거리를 만들면서 사용하던 과도칼(칼날 길이 13cm, 손잡이 길이 10.3cm, 증 제1호)을 들고 피해자 E의 목을 15회 가량, 가슴을 8회 가량, 배를 4회 가량 힘껏 찔러 피해자 E을 그 자리에서 목, 몸통 부위 다발성 자창으로 사망하게 하여 살해하였다.

As above, the Defendant continued to report the knife in the victim E-knife, but did not flife himself at all, and tried to kill the victim F, who was under the influence of alcohol, with the scarf (No. 2) of the yellow scarf, which was faced with the clothes, and the victim F, cross the scarf at the front of the victim’s scarf at the end of the scarf in the victim’s item and then killed the victim F with approximately five minutes of power, and then killed the victim F by using the scarf at his flife pressure from the flife to the light pressure. [The facts constituting the cause of the request for attachment order]

The Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor or heavier punishment for committing murder, has committed the murder crime again as stated in the judgment after the execution of the sentence is completed, and is in danger of recommitting the murder crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement concerning G, H, I, J, K, and L;

1. Each body autopsy report, each autopsy report, on-site inspection report, verification report, each verification request report, each autopsy report, each autopsy appraisal report, and each photograph;

1. Information on objects found;

1. Seizure records;

1. Each resident registration record card and each family relation certificate;

1. Report on occurrence, and each investigation report (the No. 18 through 22, 39 of the evidence list);

1. Previous convictions in the judgment: In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court during the inquiry into criminal records, etc., the Defendant is likely to recommit the murdering crime.

① After having been sentenced to seven years of imprisonment due to murder, the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes in addition to about one year after the completion of the execution of the sentence.

② The circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s previous crime and each of the instant crimes are similar to those where the Defendant had induced the victim to have sexual intercourse, leading the victim to his house and murdered.

According to the investigation prior to the request for an attachment order, the defendant's risk assessment (KORAS-G) was evaluated to be 19 points above the total risk of recidivism. In addition, as a result of the evaluation of PC-RY, the defendant's risk of recidivism was evaluated to be 21 points above the total risk of recidivism as a result of the evaluation of PC-RY, but the defendant's overall risk of recidivism was evaluated to be 21 points above the middle level, in the corresponding level, the high level and emotional and living methods were considered as risk factors. Considering the result of the defendant's evaluation of recidivism risk and other risk factors, the defendant's comprehensive risk of recidivism is considered to be 'high' level.

Application of Statutes

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

Article 250 of each Criminal Code, Selection of life style

(A) Since each type of life imprisonment has been selected for each crime at the time of sale, no repeated crime is more severe pursuant to Article 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment of Specific violent Crimes.

1. Punishment for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 1, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Inasmuch as a person has selected a punishment for life for committing murder for a victim E with a heavier penalty, no other punishment shall be imposed)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48(1)1 and 1 of the Criminal Act; issuance of an order to attach an electronic tracking device and matters to be observed;

1. Reasons for sentencing under Article 5(3), the main sentence of Article 9(1), Article 9-2(1)1, and Article 9-2(1)2-2 of the Act on the Probation, Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders;

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

(a) Basic crime (homicide for victims E);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (Influoral homicide)

[Special Aggravations] (Aggravated Punishments) (Hous Crime Cruels and Cruel Punishments; Cumulative Crimes)

【Determination of Recommendation Area】 Special Aggravation Area

[Scope of Recommendation] Imprisonment with labor for not less than 18 years or imprisonment for life

(b) A concurrent crime under subparagraph 1 (homicide for a victim F);

[Determination of Punishment] Type 3 (Influoral homicide)

[Special Aggravations] (Aggravations) special lectures (Cumulative Aggravations)

[Determination of Recommendation Area] Aggravation

[Extent of Recommendation] Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 18 years or imprisonment for life. The range of recommending punishment according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 18 years or for not less than d. the scope of recommending punishment revised by legal applicable sentences: at least the life imprisonment (the lowest of the range of sentencing recommended by the sentencing guidelines is lower than the lowest of the applicable sentencing range in law, so the lowest of the applicable sentencing range shall be set by law).

3. Determination of sentence;

Since the life of a person is the most decent legal interest that cannot be altered with any value under the world, it shall be respected in any circumstances. An act of infringing it shall be prohibited from being paid back to anti-humanistics and anti-social acts, regardless of the grounds therefor. Each of the crimes committed by the Defendant committed by the victim E and the victim F respectively.

At the time of the Defendant’s death, the parents died and grow alone, and at the age of 17, the Defendant was found to have undergone an unsatisfy growth process, such as having a satisfying disorder due to an abortion and a satisfying satis at the age of 17, and having gone through an unsatisfying growth process, such as having been engaged in funeral services or having been living while selling rubber lines.

However, the defendant has already been killed in the police in 2008. At that time, the court of law has the record of murdering a person.

The Defendant sentenced 7 years to imprisonment with labor, taking full account of the unexpected growth background of the Defendant. Nevertheless, the Defendant again committed each of the instant crimes only one year after the execution of the sentence was completed. Examining the motive, means, and methods of each of the instant crimes, there are many parts difficult to understand in general. The Defendant attempted to have a sexual intercourse with the Victim E in an investigative agency and this court, and attempted to take back the Victim at home according to the Victim F. The victims tried to have a sexual intercourse with the Defendant, but the victims stated that the victims were killed of the victims who were flick themselves during the process of concluding the dispute (other than the victim’s motive for murdering the Victim F. However, it is difficult to accept the motive of the instant crime, and it is difficult to understand that the motive and method of the instant crime were sexual intercourse.

Examining the method of murder, the Defendant, as indicated in each of the facts of the crime in its holding, knifeed the victim E’s knife, 27 times in knife, knife, knife, and murdered the victim F’s knife so far, so far. The Defendant’s method of committing the crime also flife and flife it.

Furthermore, the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, killed the victims who lack resistance ability by the aforementioned cruel method. As such, the applicable law of murdering the victims at one’s own house by inducing them to sexual intercourse is similar to the applicable law of criminal acts in the previous case, and the method of killing the victimsF stroke is similar to the method of murder in the previous case.

In addition, there is no reason after the crime was committed, such as the defendant found the wall that was missing by going to the MJ after the crime, and returned the body of the victims to the house where the victims had their body, and the article in possession is escaped to the hospital in mass production.

In full view of the motive, means and method of committing the instant crime, degree of damage, circumstances after committing the instant crime, etc., even if considering the fact that the Defendant recognized each of the instant crimes, it is desirable to impose strict liability corresponding to each of the instant crimes by isolation of the Defendant from society, defend the society from the Defendant’s crime, and have the Defendant live in the mind of committing lifelong offenses against the victims and their bereaved family members.

The punishment as ordered shall be determined by the above reasons.

Presiding Judge and Senior Judge

Judges Jeong-won

Judges Lee Jae-chul

1) The indictment is written as '52 years of age', but it seems that '53 years of age' is obvious clerical error.

2) The written indictment contains '45 years of age', but it seems that it is '44 years of age clearly clerical error.

3) The indictment contains a statement that the date and time of the crime is around 03:10 on June 29, 2016, but the date and time of the crime are stated in the information on the article found and the investigation report (for example, at the time of the crime).

According to the investigation, etc., it seems that there is an obvious clerical error at around 03:10 on June 28, 2016.