[속보] They confirm innocence of the ‘Geum-oh-do case’ for the murder of her husband

The so-called ‘Kumohdo case’, which was accused of attempting to burn a large amount of insurance money after crashing his wife’s car into the sea at the marina, was ultimately concluded as a negligent accident, not murder.

The second part of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) sentenced the court on the 24th that the court sentenced 52-year-old Park Mo to three years in prison, who was convicted of murder and other charges, acknowledging the charges of murder and guilty of murder.

The judge said: “There are several suspicious circumstances, such as the car’s transmission was in a neutral state and the side brake was not locked, but it is difficult to rule out a reasonable suspicion that the death of the victim was not due to the deliberate crime of the accused”. He accepted the sentence of the lower court, which pleaded not guilty to the murder charge.

◇ What happened on Geumodo Island in Yeosu that day …

On December 31, 2018, Mr. Park was charged with murdering his wife A (47), who drowned a car in a marina in Geumo-do, Yeosu City, Jeollanam-do, on December 31, 2018 .

Visiting this place to see the New Years sunrise, the couple parked their car on the slope leading to the marina. Suddenly, Mr. Park backed up, saying that he would move the vehicle backwards, and the vehicle collided with a fall prevention guardrail that was 1 meter behind. Just before getting out, Park shifted into neutral and got out alone, releasing the parking brake and checking the car. The window behind the passenger seat was open about 7 cm. Park went behind the car and pushed it out to sea. Mr. A drowned in the sea while in a car.

Park and A were married on the 10th of the same month. Before the accident, Mr. Park changed the beneficiaries of six insurance cases, including Mr. A’s existing insurance, to his own name. The total amount of insurance money Mr. A would receive for Mr. A’s death was approximately 1.25 billion won. The sea-kyung, who was suspicious of this, investigated Mr. A under arrest and Mr. A was put on trial for murder.

◇ First trial is life imprisonment, second trial is 3 year prison … Tried differently whether or not it is ‘planned murder’

Previously, the first and second arbitrators reached opposite conclusions on this case. The first trial court said: “The precious life was used as a tool for deprivation of insurance money, and the victim drowned in extreme pain while drowning in the cold sea with a car on a winter night, so that guilt is extremely bad and the possibility of social criticism is very high. ” He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

However, the second trial overturned the sentence of the first, saying: “In view of various circumstances, the method of committing this case is too spontaneous and has many contingent factors to be considered the method of choice for the criminal who decided in advance.” .

The first referee believed that the defendant pushed the car because the car was stopped at the time the defendant got off the bus, and the point where the vehicle rolled was not found due to the movement of the interior occupant. However, the second referee said: “There is a possibility that the victim was lying in the passenger seat when the accused got off the train to verify the situation, and the possibility that the vehicle moved according to the situation cannot be ruled out. movement of the victim with a weight of 70-80 kg “. It was decided that the possibility that the car was not missing could not be ruled out.

Furthermore, said the second trial court, “if the accused plans to kill, it is common to meticulously register and prepare the crime scene and the method of execution in advance, but in view of various circumstances, the method of committing this case is not the one chosen by the criminal who decided in advance. It is too spontaneous and has many contingent elements ”. The first trial found that the defendant had established a ‘criminal plan’ in advance, seeing that the defendant took photos and videos of the pier with a mobile phone to closely capture the structure of the pier, the place of the crime, 8 days before the crime. However, the second referee overruled the first referee’s judgment, saying: “The first half of the video points to the other side of the bench, and the second half is taken after the movement of the victim, so it seems natural as a whole.” .

As for the motive for the crime, the judgment of the first and second referee is very heterogeneous. The first trial found that the most important motive for the crime was the death insurance premium of more than 1 billion won, which will be paid for the death of the victim to the defendant who was in financial difficulty at the time of the crime. On the other hand, the second court of first instance ruled that “a review of the income and expenses of the defendant before and after the incident, it seems that the defendant was in a somewhat difficult economic situation, but it is not enough to convince that this it could have formed a motive to murder the victim ”. did.

In addition, the first trial ruled that ‘the defendant did not rescue the victim who fell into the sea’ based on the wind and ocean currents at the time of the crime, the victim’s 119 complaint call and the video from a camera of close security (CCTV). The second trial court judges that the car at the time of the accident appears to have crashed into a slope, and there is no content to blame the defendant in the content of the victim’s report, and when the defendant requested the rescue of the witness immediately after the accident, his clothes and head were wet. He judged that he could not conclude that he did not rescue.

However, the court sentenced him to three years in prison, saying: “The defendant did not lock the side brakes and caused the victim to drown by causing the vehicle to fall into the sea with the negligence of slowing down in neutral.”

On this day, the Supreme Court raised its hand from the second trial. It is believed that there was insufficient evidence that Mr. Park had planned the murder of Mr. A.

◇ Son of Mr. A, “A clear crime who knows heaven and earth is not guilty” Petition by Cheong Wa Dae

On May 30, SBS ‘I Want To Know’ broadcast the ‘Yeosu Night Sea Tragedy-The Car Accident and Death Case of Geum-Odo’, dealing with this case, and this incident attracted public attention.

Next month, on June 3, Mr. A’s son, Mr. B, filed a petition for the Blue House titled ‘Yeosu Geum-Odo Killing Case for 1.75 Billion Won, My Poor mother’.

In this petition, Mr. B said: “My mother met Park while separated from her father due to family discord, and after remarrying, she went to Geum-Odo Island on December 31, 2018 to see dawn and suffered irreparable damage. ” She said: “I was so resentful and resentful that I was found guilty of an obvious crime known to the country, so I complained on the Blue House website.”