2024-03-24 03:21:04
[사건노트]is a corner where lawyer Kim Woo-seok, a former chief prosecutor, provides legal solutions to hot issue cases and also provides information on investigation and trial practices. Reporter Lee Ga-young summarizes.
A photo of Mr. A (28), who killed his girlfriend by stabbing her about 190 times, was shown on a broadcast. In the actual broadcast, only the victim’s girlfriend’s face was mosaiced, and the perpetrator’s face was exposed as is. /JTBC
“I received bereaved family relief funds, but if I had known that this would be taken into consideration in sentencing, I would never have received it. “The state betrayed me, and the state committed fraud against me.”
On the 20th, the 1st Criminal Division of the Chuncheon Chamber of the Seoul High Court (Presiding Judge Min Ji-hyun). The mother of the victim, who was brutally murdered after being stabbed nearly 200 times by the man she lived with who had promised to marry her, expressed her anger by saying this.
Defendant A (28) was put on trial on charges of murdering his girlfriend, with whom he lived in an apartment in Yeongwol-gun, by stabbing her 190 times with a weapon at home in July last year. I focused on her face area. It was such an incident that the trial prosecutor said, “It was so bad that I couldn’t bear to look at the autopsy documents.” A claims that he ‘committed the murder of his girlfriend while talking to her due to noise issues between floors with neighbors,’ but the bereaved family’s position is, ‘Does that make sense?’
The sentence sentenced to A in the first trial was ‘17 years in prison.’
When listing the reasons for reducing the sentence, the court also included the fact that ‘the bereaved family received bereaved family relief funds.’ It is said that the bereaved family relief money paid by the state was the reason for reducing the murderer’s sentence.
◇Bereaved family relief fund, is it consideration or betrayal of the state?
Q. First of all, what is bereaved family relief fund?
A. This is relief money paid by the government to the surviving family members of victims who have died from violent crimes such as murder. This is a system in which the state protects and supports the bereaved family when it is impossible for the bereaved family to recover from the damage because ▲the perpetrator is unknown or ▲the perpetrator does not have the economic power to compensate for the damage.
Q. If the murder victim’s surviving family receives relief funds from the state, will the murderer’s sentence be reduced? If it is true, it would be very unfair and grievous for the bereaved family.
A. Surviving family relief funds are paid by the government. The murderer did not compensate the bereaved family for their losses. Therefore, it is inappropriate to lower the sentence of a murderer for the sake of bereaved family relief.
Photo and personal information of Mr. A revealed on the broadcast. /JTBC
◇Even if there are ‘reasons for favorable sentencing’ in the judgment, is the reality different?
Q. Then why did the first trial court consider the bereaved family relief fund to be a favorable sentencing ground for Mr. A?
A. Looking at the first trial ruling, it says, “The prosecution paid bereaved family relief funds to the victim’s surviving family and then requested compensation from the defendant, and the defendant paid the entire amount to the prosecution.” Looking at the results alone, it appears that the defendant repaid a significant amount of the bereaved family’s relief funds, so the first trial viewed this as a reason for favorable sentencing.
This is a personal guess based on practical experience, but I believe that the first trial court may have mentioned bereaved family relief funds when trying to state that Mr. A compensated even a small portion of the damages. The victim’s family would not have treated Mr. A leniently just because he received bereaved family relief funds.
This is because the bereaved family received the bereaved family relief money thinking it was a ‘relief fund’ from the ‘state’, not because they thought it was a ‘settlement’ from the ‘defendant’. The court naturally takes these circumstances into consideration.
Q. The judgment says ‘reasons for favorable sentencing’, but is it possible that it is not actually grounds for leniency?
A. Just because there are favorable sentencing grounds for the offender does not actually result in leniency.
For example, the fact that ▲the offender is in poor health makes it difficult for him to be imprisoned, ▲the offender’s acquaintances are pleading for leniency for the offender, ▲the offender repeatedly submits a statement of remorse, and ▲there are dependents who only look out for the offender, etc. are commonly listed in most judgments. This is a reason for leniency.
However, even if there is such a reason, it does not always mean that we will be treated leniently. In order to receive leniency, you must have your own reason for leniency, which exists only for you and not for others. Because you can’t treat a specific person leniently just because everyone else has a reason for lenient treatment.
However, in the judgment, along with these reasons for leniency, reasons for sentencing that are ‘generally considered advantageous’, such as ▲health, ▲plea for leniency, ▲reflection, and ▲dependents, are also listed. This is just an ‘additional decoration’ and is not an actual reason for leniency. However, since it is written in the judgment, people who are not familiar with the practice may misunderstand that they were treated leniently because of this.
However, the mere mention of recovery of damages through bereaved family relief funds as a ‘reason for favorable sentencing’ in the judgment itself can cause great harm to the bereaved family. I feel regret that it would have been better if a little more consideration had been given to the feelings of the bereaved family.
◇I was stabbed about 190 times, but was it ‘accidental murder’?
Q. The prosecution requested 25 years in prison, but the first trial sentenced you to 17 years in prison. Do you think the sentence is appropriate?
A. According to the court’s sentencing standards, the basic sentence for ‘accidental murder’ is 10 to 16 years in prison. The first trial appears to have sentenced him to a higher sentence of 17 years in prison, considering that he was stabbed about 190 times with a weapon.
On the other hand, prosecutors argued that the sentence should be much harsher. The motive for the crime has not been identified, and it appears that it is not considered an ‘accidental murder.’ It is difficult to imagine accidentally stabbing a person 190 times due to the stress of noise between floors. Because the bereaved family also thinks this way, they are filled with the sadness of losing their daughter and even the injustice.
The second trial verdict is scheduled to be announced on the 17th of next month. We look forward to a wise decision from the court. Additionally, we pray for the soul of the deceased and the recovery of the bereaved family.
Wooseok Kim, CEO of Myungjin Law Firm. /Chosun DB
1711259118
#killed #person #stabbing #face #times #sentenced #years #prison.. #bereaved #family #relief #fund #betrayal #state