'Korea Valley Murder' defendant Lee Eun-hye sentenced to life imprisonment

Lee Eun-hye (32), the defendant in the Korean Valley murder case, has been sentenced to life in prison. On the 21st, the South Korean Supreme Court ruled against Lee Eun-hye, who was indicted on charges including murder, and her accomplice Cho Hyun-soo.
The date for the appellate judgment in Case (31) was set, and the original court sentenced them to life in prison and 30 years in prison, respectively. At around 8:24 p.m. on June 30, 2019, defendants Lee and Cho
She was put on trial on charges of murdering Lee's husband, Yoon, who was 39 years old at the time of her death, in Yeongseo Valley in Gapyeong County, Gyeonggi Province. Prosecutors said the two men needed rescue equipment for Yun, who could not swim.
It was determined that the victim was forced to jump unprepared from a 4-meter-high rock into 3-meters of water, resulting in her death.
In February and May 2019, the two consumed food mixed with poisonous blowfish testicles and blood.
He was also accused of attempting to kill Yoon by forcing him to eat food and drowning him at a fishing spot. Prosecutors said the two had taken out life insurance money worth 800 million won (approximately 88.46 million yen) in Yoon's name.
It appears that the crime was carried out in a deliberate manner. The trial court found Lee and Cho guilty of murder and sentenced them to life in prison and 30 years in prison, respectively. He was also ordered to wear an electronic device for 20 years.
. The second trial, like the first trial, sentenced him to life imprisonment and 30 years in prison, respectively. The second trial court said, ``Murder is a serious crime that cannot be recovered from and cannot be tolerated.
"He committed an attempt and a murder, and his culpability is heavy," the statement said, adding, "There is a high possibility that he will be blamed for intentionally failing to fulfill his duty to provide relief due to the purpose and plan of the murder."
However, it was determined that this incident was not a direct (actual) murder due to gaslighting (psychological control). than direct murder
It was determined that this was indirect (omission) murder as the victim intentionally did not rescue the victim who drowned after diving. The second trial chamber stated, ``Although it is determined that there are some elements of gaslighting,
It is unclear whether he formed a logical master-servant relationship and controlled the victim, and no intention of controlling the victim could be found.''The prosecution also claimed that the murder was committed due to a state of psychological submission, but it was gaslighting.''
"The difference in legal meaning is ambiguous, and the evidence presented alone is not enough to admit that the victim was murdered in a state of psychological submission."
The Supreme Court also upheld the judgment of the lower court and dismissed the appeal.
The Supreme Court stated, ``The trial court found the defendants guilty of murder and attempted murder among the facts of the prosecution case.
I certainly did not make the mistake of violating the laws of logic and experience and going beyond the limits of free-spirited evidence, or of misunderstanding legal principles regarding the principle of non-prosecution, changes in public charges, attempted incapacity, and the establishment of murder through omission.'' judgment
Indicated.