피해자가 작성한 메모, 피해자의 딸 등 유족이 녹음한 피해자의 녹음진술 및 피해자의 딸 등의 진술에 의하면, 피고인이 신변을 비관하며 죽어버리겠다는 피해자에게 "이거 먹고 콱 죽어라"라며 제초제(그라목손)가 담긴 드링크병을 건네주어 피해자의 자살을 방조하였다는 이 사건 공소사실을 충분히 유죄로 인정할 수 있다.

Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts or by misapprehending legal principles, which affected the conclusion of judgment

2. Determination

A. Summary of the facts charged in this case

around March 4, 2002, the defendant is a person who has a marital relationship with the victim after reporting the marriage with the victim.

On May 1, 2015, the Defendant, at around 10:40 on May 1, 2015, at the Defendant’s house located in Ulsan-gun G, the victim brought a dispute with the victim with respect to the fact that the victim lost his personal effects. The victim was infinite and her body, and the Defendant: (a) finited a link in which the primary agent (d) was located inside the house called “finite so that the victim could commit suicide due to the occurrence of the said primary agent, etc.; and (b) aided the victim to commit suicide by causing the victim to die with the primary agent (d). The Defendant assisted the victim’s suicide on September 27, 2013 by allowing the victim to die from the primary medical center located in the Seocho-si, Seocho-si, Sin-si, Sin-si, Mac-ro 3.

B. Judgment of the court below

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the grounds that ① the statement of the victim recorded in the victim’s Memmograph and the recording file, ② the Defendant’s statement in the victim’s friendship, H, I, and J’s investigative agency and the court of the lower court, the birth of the victim, and the remainder of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, are not sufficiently reliable, and it is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case was sufficiently proven to the extent that the judge could have verified the truth without reasonable doubt.

(i) the probative value of a pen and a tape recording statement;

A) The victim was written in the front part of the metama that "I do not refuse to do so", and in the back part, "I do not have a emotional friendly or emotional expression against the defendant, such as "I do not have to use a 0 foot and 100 foot and 100 foot." Two people had a frequent dispute over ordinary small days. In particular, on the day of the instant case, I seem to have suffered a serious dispute because I lost the object, which is a means of living.

It is difficult to readily exclude the possibility of the victim’s exaggeration or false statement due to the victim’s psychological condition and the Defendant’s malicious testimony.

In addition, H and I are the parents of the victim, but they grow under the slurbly from the time when they were living far away from the victim, and all families of the victim, such as H, I, and J, who had been living in a place far away from the victim at the time when the slurbation and recording statement was made, seem to have been living independently and frequently.

In full view of the fact that the victim did not think of his/her own death as soon as he/she did at the time the preparation and recording statement was made in relation to the emotional ties with the above family, the victim is likely to not be able to become aware of his/her own sound mind to his/her family.

B) Most of all, there was no objective evidence that conforms to the victim’s statement. The victim stated in the recording statement that the victim took two agrochemicals together with the Defendant from the Defendant in a pair of sugars and broken the other bottle.

However, the victim's house did not find a pairer disease or a shoulder view thereof in the victim's house, and even if pesticide ingredients were not detected in the floor of the room or the garbage tank (the police officer in charge of field identification found a link from the garbage tank, but did not conduct an additional investigation on the ground that the police officer in charge of field identification found a link from the garbage tank, but did not have an agrochemical smell.).

On the other hand, even though the victim was found in the defendant's house boiler room, there was old dust storage, and the victim's fingerprints was not included in the defendant's fingerprints. (C) around 14:30 on May 4, 2015, the victim prepared a camera in the emergency room of the K Hospital, which was a small son, and recorded the victim's statement with only one cell phone among other relatives who talked with the victim at around 16:17:0 on the day, 16:17:0 on May 4, 2015. At the time of recording statement, the victim's statement was made in the form of visiting the victim's body. According to the tape recording statement, only the victim's answer remains and recorded the recording file as it is, it is difficult to confirm the credibility of the victim's statement because the victim's statement was made without any question, and there was no response to the victim's own response to the victim's statement at the time of hearing.

D) As to the part on which the Defendant walked the victim with agrochemicals, the Megrmo states that the Defendant himself had a new pesticide, and that he had a direct agricultural product,” relatively simplified, and that the expression “as the context is not natural,” the expression “as he had a direct agricultural product,” does not comply with the latter part’s terms.

반면에 녹음진술에서는 “두 병인데 그 검은 봉지에다 싸가지고, 똘똘 싸가지고 꺼내 주더라. 그러면서 '이거다.'고 '쌍화탕병이다.'고 그러대. 그래서 내가 ‘야 쌍화탕병에다. 이렇게 넣어놓으면 내가 어떻게 찾니?' 그래서 뭐 그래, ‘이거 제초제 이거 꽉 먹고 죽으라.'고 그러면서 주고 나가더라고"라고 메모에 비해 상당히 구체적인 이야기를 하였음을 알 수 있다.

In full view of the above detailed contents of the camera and recording statement, the time when the camera and recording statement were made, the method of conversation at the time of the recording statement, the amount of the victim's statement recorded in the recording file, etc., it is difficult to completely eliminate the possibility of recording by inducing the victim to give specific answers to himself/herself (it also recognized that the recording was not made in the court of original instance by stating that "after hearing the victim's horses, it would be the same as that of the victim's horses, so it would be necessary that the recording was made once again" in the court of original instance, and that the conversation was not made naturally in the process of naturally leading to a recording).

E) All the statement on the preparation and recording of a camera was made between the Defendant and other families, such as the victim without good appraisal, in the absence of the Defendant. Before the investigation of the instant case was commenced in full scale, the Defendant was unable to confirm the above camera and recording statement or to have an adequate opportunity to reflect on it (the victim’s remaining family members, including the Defendant, immediately after the Defendant was drawn up, went to the sick room). The victim’s statement was very shocked that the Defendant, who is his wife, caused the death of himself, and other family members, such as H and I, were not immediately asked the Defendant, and the victim’s statement appears to have been made without distinction from the Defendant until the death of the victim.

F) The victim’s camera and recording statement are limited to a brief statement that the Defendant laid down agrochemicals against the victim (the amount of this part of the camera and recording statement is less than 100 persons each on the basis of the number of letters). There are no specific circumstances such as the time and circumstances during which the pesticide was dried, the victim’s response attitude, specific sound reading methods, quantity, etc. In addition, it seems that family members, such as H, did not re-examine the victim’s specific circumstances.

2) The credibility of the Defendant’s statements made by H, I, and J (hereinafter referred to as “bereaved family members”)

A) On the other hand, the Defendant’s statement that the bereaved family members participated in the victim’s statement is “the Defendant informed the victim of the location of an agrochemical” and there is a considerable difference in the content of the statement.

B) Examining the bereaved family’s investigative agencies and legal statements in detail, the bereaved family members’ direct statement to the Defendant, the contents known to the Defendant through a mergical and audio recording file, the contents known to the bereaved family members in their dialogue, and the bereaved family members’ converging with their own names, and the details inferred by the bereaved family members. There is considerable doubt as to the credibility of the victim’s statement, such as the victim’s statement and the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s statement or knowledge of certain facts, and the parts having any inconsistency between the statements are as follows.

(1) At the police station, H stated, “Around 10:55 on May 4, 2015, when the Defendant calls with the Defendant, and made a statement to the effect that “I would like to be informed that I would have been on the back to the back, because I would like to see how I would be the victim drink while drinking with the Defendant.” After that, H made a statement to the effect that I would like to say, “I would like to see that I would see that I would die at the back of the half, because I would like to see that I would die at the face of the victim.” After that, H made a statement to the effect that “I would see that I would see that I would see that I would see the location where I would drink and die the victim,” and made a statement to the contrary after the passage of time.

H stated in the prosecutor’s office that “I stated that I was on the front half of a pesticide disease at the time of the police-related investigation, and that I made a statement that I would like to say, “I would like to say I would like to be on the front, because I would like to be on the front, I would like to say I would like to be on the front,” and that I would like to recognize that I would like to make a statement that I would like to see the location of one of the important parts of the statement. In addition, H stated in the court of the court of the court below that “I would like to say I would like to say, “I would like to make a statement that I would have come to know,” rather than that of the Defendant, I would like to make a statement that I would have come to know while I talked with I. The part that I would like to say, “I would have been on the front,” was an important part that I would lead the victim to commit suicide, but also recognized that H would have confused with the content that I came to know through another person.

(2) He, who is a minor father of the victim, stated in the police that "the victim's statement is unable to find agrochemicals in consideration of the victim's statement, and the defendant thought that the victim would have come to her own disease because of the victim's failure to find agrochemicals," and the prosecution stated that "the defendant would have been able to have himself/herself and that he/she would have been able to have been able to get agrochemicals on his/her own while carrying agrochemicals on the victim," and that the defendant's statement that he/she himself/herself caused agrochemicals to the victim is his/her vague trend." In addition, the police stated that "the police did not have any way to keep agrochemicals in any place," and the prosecution did not make a concrete statement about the location of agrochemicals, and around 1 year and 3 months after the date of the occurrence of the case, the court of the court below stated that "the defendant would have been able to have been able to get agrochemicals on the front half of the defendant's statement" and made a change in the contents so concretely more unfavorable to the defendant's statement.

(3) In the telephone conversation with a police officer, J, the victim’s female son, stated that “The Defendant was forced to talk during the phone conversations with K on May 4, 2015, and the Defendant provided that the Defendant was the victim by giving sicks contained in the wing page to the victim that the victim was faced with agrochemicals. The Defendant asked the victim again and then recorded the content thereof.”

However, the court below stated that the time when the statement of the victim was recorded in the court below's court was around 4-5 p.m. from May 4, 2015 after arrival at the JO K Hospital, and that the victim's statement was recorded by the solicitation of relatives who talked with other relatives who talked with the other relatives, it is inconsistent with the above statement by JJ.

J also reversed his statement in the court of the court below that it is not well memory as to whether he or she or he or she arrives in K, or as to whether he or she or she arrives in K.

C) The Defendant and the bereaved family members appear to have never been able to reach an agreement before the victim was able to read. Since the Defendant and the bereaved family members conflict with economic interests with the victim’s remaining property (such as KRW 57 million and insurance proceeds, etc., the proceeds from the disposal of fishing vessels), it is difficult to readily exclude the possibility that the bereaved family members have made an exaggerated or false statement with the intent to have a malicious appraisal against the Defendant or occupy favorable status in the dispute over inherited portion.

3) Other circumstantial facts

A) It is difficult to find a special motive for causing the death of a victim who has maintained a matrimonial relationship for more than 10 years (it is recognized that the defendant designated the victim as the insured, his/her beneficiary, and purchased three insurance policies, but the defendant also joined the insurance policy in 2003, 2009, and 2011, much earlier than the occurrence of the instant case, and the defendant reduced the amount of the insurance policy on April 8, 2015, which is one month prior to the death of the victim).

B) At the K Hospital, M, who is a doctor in charge, discussed the victim about the reason for drinking agrochemicals. The victim stated that “I want to kill the victim three (3) weeks prior to the death of the victim, I drinked the first preparations in the pair of sugar (see, e.g., evidence record 259 pages).”

C) The victim did not reveal the Defendant’s boundary or awareness before another family member or the medical staff in charge. During the time of being hospitalized, the victim was released from the Defendant along with the son.

C. The judgment of this Court

The crime of aiding and abetting a suicide under Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Act is established by facilitating the commission of a person who intends to commit a suicide by attempting to commit such a crime. In order to establish such a crime of aiding and abetting a person, the existence of an act that aid and facilitates the commission of a specific suicide by the other party to the aiding and abetting and the awareness of such act is required (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1373, Jun. 10, 2005). Since the crime of aiding and abetting a person assumes the premise of the other party to the aiding and abetting in the nature of the crime, the existence of the act of aiding and abetting a person who intends to commit a suicide prior to the perception of the aiding and abetting person as a crime of aiding and abetting a crime of aiding and abetting a person who intends to commit a suicide is required to adopt a resolution of aiding and abetting a crime of aiding and abetting and abetting a person who

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which the court below properly adopted and investigated, i.e., (1) the victim suffered from the defendant's loss of miscellaneous use and drinking drinking water, and (2) the victim visited the defendant's house, but three days after the date of drinking, and entered the bus-raising medical center at the time of drinking, and it is deemed that the victim's entry of drinking medicine only was absorption because he did not appear to have been able to have been able to reach a small amount of suicide, and there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's act of drinking medicine because the defendant did not appear to have committed suicide, i.e., the victim's misunderstanding or misunderstanding of the facts that the victim did not have any legitimate intent of drinking medicine.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judge Doo

Documents or articles on which a concurrent holding of office and the defendant agree shall be admitted as evidence when deemed to be genuine.

In addition, except where the protocol of trial is clearly clerically written, it shall be judicial proceedings at the court date which are written in the protocol of trial.

The burden of proof is proved only, and its probative value is absolute in that materials other than the protocol of trial are not allowed to be counter-proof (Supreme Court).

The defendant's opinion on whether consent or petition has been reached with respect to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Do173, Apr. 9, 1996).

In the case of entry in the evidence list, the entry in the evidence list has absolute probative value, unless it is a clear clerical error as part of the protocol of trial.

However, the defendant is admitted as evidence on the seventh day of the trial of the court below as to the above-mentioned writing and recording statement submitted by the prosecutor as evidence.

With the consent of the 8th day of examination, it is shown in the evidence list that the examination of evidence was made and it is apparent that the consent is given in the evidence list.

There is no evidence to prove that there is a clerical error (in particular, the court below shall resume the pleading for the admissibility of evidence and for the examination of evidence as to the above evidence.

(B) The above evidence list shall be deemed absolute probative value as part of the protocol of trial. Thus, the evidence of the above writing and recording statement shall be proved.

The judgment of the court below that denied the ability is improper. However, even if the above evidence is admitted as the admissibility, the court below has the probative value as follows.

Since the decision of the court below is just in its conclusion, it cannot be said that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment.