[ad_1]
There is a place where the vehicle rolls alone in the field.
Supreme Court “It was dark so I wouldn’t have known the exact location
“The victim could have bought insurance because he wanted it”
“There should be no question about it.”
The Supreme Court concluded that the so-called ‘Kumohdo case’, in which lower court judgments were mixed on whether it was an intentional crime targeting insurance money, could not be considered murder.
To push the vehicle down it is necessary to stop the vehicle in a position where there is no slope and align the wheels so that it does not collide with obstacles, which is not easy considering the current situation.
It was also found that the victim did not appear to be required to purchase death insurance and that the defendant also underwritten the same product. On this basis, the Supreme Court determined that there was no evidence to prove the intent of the murder.
According to the court on the 25th, the second part of the Supreme Court (Chief Justice Ahn Cheol-sang) confirmed the court case sentenced to three years in prison on the appeal of Park Mo (52), who was accused of violating the Law Special on Handling Traffic Accidents (lethal) the day before, and car burial. In December 2018, Park was brought to trial on charges of pushing a passenger car with Mr. A at a marina in Geumo-do, Yeosu-si, Jeollanam-do, crashing it into the sea and causing death. The prosecution said that just prior to the incident, Mr. Park signed a series of insurance products for Mr. A and, after killing him, committed the same crime to recover death insurance benefits. He sentenced Mr. A to life imprisonment, saying the prosecution’s prosecution was acknowledged. The second referee annulled this sentence.
The prosecution suspected that Mr. Park pushed the vehicle in which Mr. A was riding after putting the vehicle in neutral (N) and failing to lock the side brakes.
However, the appeals court conducted an experiment with the same vehicle in which Mr. A was traveling at the scene of the accident. The vehicle gear was set to neutral (N) and the side brakes were not applied. It was confirmed that the vehicle descended the 0.5 m to 1.5 m slope from the hit railing.
As a result, the vehicle lowered 1.5 m from the railing and did not move only 1.2 m. However, when the person in the passenger seat made an upper body raising motion once, the vehicle swung down. The second referee saw that Park did not intentionally plan the crime based on these points.
The Supreme Court also ruled that there was no direct evidence to suggest that Park was deliberately committing murder.
First, the judges assumed that Park could not have stopped there knowing precisely where the vehicle was not descending, that is, 0.5 m from the railing. The incident occurred at 11 p.m. and there is no light, making it difficult to determine the location of the stop.
In addition, for the vehicle to crash into the sea, it must pass between the puddle on the left side of the pier and the stone. For this, the steering of the bodywork and the wheels must be aligned so that the vehicle can roll steadily, but that is also realistically possible. be be.
Evidence was also cited that the crashed vehicle’s ride was different from what Park had previously driven. To shift the vehicle from forward (D) to park (P), the rod must be raised one step to neutral (N), then pushed to the right, and then raised again. The judges believed that Park, who was not good at operating gears, suddenly hit the railing and felt embarrassed.
The situation that Mr. A did not purchase insurance due to Park’s duress was also mentioned. Mr. A signed two insurance contracts to maximize death insurance, and the judges explained that the additional premiums for these products were negligible even if death insurance was increased. Park also supported the judges’ judgment by raising the safety limit per death to the maximum before meeting with A.
Through this ruling, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the existing precedent that he cannot be admitted as guilty in situations where the intent of the crime is suspected.
A Supreme Court official said: “The recognition of a crime in the criminal process must be based on strict evidence with evidence that gives judges the confidence that there is no room for reasonable doubt.”
[서울=뉴시스]Copyright by dongA.com All rights reserved.
