2011 Highest 235 Murders (Death or Injury by Preliminary Crime: Injury)

201 High 14 (Joint Medical Treatment and Custody)

201Before 201 Written order to attach 20(combined)

Appellants and persons requesting an attachment order

Park ○-, Department of Duty

Residential Chang-si window

Reference Foundation CISD at Changwon City

Park Jong-sung (Court) (Court of Justice) (Court of Justice) (Court of Justice)

Attorney Cho Il-il, Park Il-young (Korean)

9 persons

January 6, 2012

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

A person who applies for medical treatment and custody shall be punished by the medical treatment and custody. This case's command is dismissed.

Criminal facts and facts constituting grounds for request for medical treatment and custody

The defendant and the candidate for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") are those who lack the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental disorder on the related network or damage network.

Victim ○○ Kim(55 years of age) is living in the Hosi-si ○○dong **-*-*, and ParkC is living in the side of the second floor, which is the same domicile as the victim, and the mother of the defendant living in the family of the second floor, which is the same domicile as that of the victim, is between the defendant's mother Kim○.

Park○-○ asked Kim○-○ to send his station to his domicile on September 9, 2011 and around 21, and asked Kim○-○ to send his station to his domicile, and Kim○-○ had recorded his domicile in Park○-○.

On September 22, 2011, at around 03:20 on September 22, 201, the Defendant: (a) ○○dong of Changwon-si ****** ○○○○ Manionion****** promptly, (b) her horse, her horse, her family member, her relative, and her relative may live at the address he/she has opened, and (c) her family, her relative, and her relative may die at the address he/she has proposed that he/she could live at the address he/she has her, her family, her relative, and her relative.

Accordingly, the defendant has a knife (the total length of 31.5cm, the knife length of 19.5cm) and a knife with the address of the victim by Kim Jong, and * Part**** a passenger car parked in an underground parking lot and the family of the victim whose address is entered in the knife of the knife.

At around 04:20 on the same day, the Defendant arrived at the victim’s house, and was shaking the entrance by hand. The sound is the victim who is her, and died of the victim’s left side fuckbucks with the string knife with the door door, once by the heater, and caused the victim to die with low blood-related shocks caused by the left-hand shock. Ultimately, the Defendant murdered the victim with the lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions, and there is a need to receive treatment at the medical treatment and custody facility, and there is a risk of recommitting murdering the murder.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The statement of each police officer made to Park 00, JeonO, and Park O;

1. Each investigation report (Attachment of a photo of a field and a changeer, attachment of a bamboo medical certificate, CCTV image photo attachment, seizure site, fingerprint photograph attachment, attachment of a photograph, specific circumstances and opinion of the suspect, attachment of a collection paper, attachment of a vice inspector, response to the results of appraisal, such as the instrument of crime, etc., and attachment of a suspect's mental diagnosis document);

1. A written autopsy report, a written autopsy report, a written autopsy report, a written autopsy report, a response to requests for appraisal and a written yellow survey;

1. The necessity of medical treatment and custody and the risk of repeating a crime: The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above and the statement of the claim prior to the crime: (i) the Defendant was hospitalized at ○○ University ○○ Hospital and ○○ Hospital located in Changwon-si, Changwon-si, from around 2007 to around the time of the crime; (ii) the Defendant was suffering from mental fission, due to the fact that the Defendant was suffering from the network, exchange, etc., and caused damage to the network, exchange, etc.; (iii) the Defendant appears to have committed the instant crime; and (iv) the Defendant appears to have been in need of professional treatment and regular administration of mental fissions; and without undergoing sufficient medical treatment, it is highly probable that the Defendant would be subject to medical treatment and custody at the medical treatment and custody facility for his own defense without real verification due to the symptoms of the above mental disorder; and (v) the background and content of the instant crime, the Defendant’s character and behavior, the present state of recidivism, etc.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 250(1) of the Criminal Act (Appointment of Imprisonment for Imprisonment)

1. Statutory mitigation;

Articles 10(2) and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (person with mental disability)

1. Medical treatment and custody;

Article 2 (1) 1 of the Medical Treatment and Custody Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the assertion

At the time of the instant crime, there was an intention to kill the victim, but there was no intention to kill the victim, and there was no mental disorder that did not have the ability to discern things due to mental or physical disorder, or there was no ability to make a decision.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court with respect to murder: (i) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant knife the victim with the intent to completely control the victim beyond simply causing bodily harm; (ii) one time of the two-time attack against the victim bucks where the victim bucks the victim bucks; and (iii) it is sufficiently possible for the victim to die with excessive blood if the blood bucks are damaged; (iv) the 13 cm out of the knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife k.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

B. The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court concerning the mental disorder: (i) although the defendant has injured the victim for the security of himself and his family, the defendant himself appears to have been aware of the intention to leave him; (ii) the defendant prepared the knife to be used for the crime at the time of the crime; (iii) had the victim in his house called the "child-friendly body"; and (iv) had the victim fleded with the victim on one occasion, on the ground that the defendant had no ability to prepare for the crime, such as the defendant's specific memory at the time of the crime; and (iv) had no ability to establish the crime after considering the circumstances and circumstances of the crime, it is difficult to view that the defendant had the ability to change the decision at the time of the crime.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.

The reason for sentencing appears to have been suffering from severe stress, such as the defendant being subject to sexual assault during military life, and the symptoms of mental fission have deteriorated as above, resulting in the crime of this case. Thus, there is no room to consider the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, but there is a side effect that the defendant voluntarily suspended pharmacologic treatment due to side effects caused by pharmacologic treatment and aggravated mental fission, and the result of the crime of this case is too serious. However, the defendant's family is being treated and protected, 20 million won is deposited for the victim's bereaved family, and all of the sentencing factors revealed in the arguments of this case such as the defendant's mental condition, etc. are considered as a whole.

The rejection of the request for attachment order

1. Summary of a prosecutor's request for attachment order;

A prosecutor requested an attachment order of a location tracking device under Article 5(3) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders on the ground that it is recognized that a person who committed murder as stated in the judgment of the person subject to the attachment order and is likely to recommit the murder crime.

2. Determination

In order to issue an order to attach an electronic tracking device pursuant to Article 5(3) of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, it should be recognized that the person subject to the request to attach an electronic tracking device has a risk of recommitting the crime of homicide in the future. "Risk of recommitting the crime of homicide" means that the possibility that the person subject to the request to attach an electronic tracking device is insufficient to repeat the crime, and that there is a considerable probability that the person subject to the request to attach an electronic tracking device would undermine legal peace by again committing the crime of homicide in the future. The risk of recommitting the crime is determined objectively by comprehensively assessing all the circumstances, such as the occupation and environment of the person subject to the request to attach an electronic tracking device, the motive, means, circumstances after the crime, and outline of the crime, etc., and it is difficult to conclude that the defendant has committed a new crime of homicide in the future at the level of risk of recidivism prior to the date of judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do28, Jun. 24, 2004).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the request for the attachment order of this case is without merit, and the request for the attachment order of this case is dismissed pursuant to Article 9(4)1 of the Act on the Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders.

jury verdict and sentencing opinion;

1. A verdict of guilt or innocence;

Opinions of conviction against murder by nine jurors only in a unanimous manner.

2. Three years of imprisonment with prison labor for a juror, who has an opinion on sentencing.

(b) Five years of imprisonment with prison labor for up to three jurors and six years of imprisonment with prison labor for up to four jurors;

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

Judge Choi Sang-soo

Judges Park Jong-dae