The judgment below

The term "1. Probation and Probation" in the "Application of Acts and subordinate statutes."

A. The defendant's appeal 1) misapprehension of the legal principles stated that the defendant was placed in favor of the commercial building by the victim, and the defendant's act was necessary to prevent additional damage. The defendant's act was not in violation of the duty of care in the decision of the court below, and it was not possible to anticipate that the defendant's act was able to death due to the defendant's act of breaking his shoulder, and there is no causation between the defendant's violation of the duty of care in the decision of the court below and the death of the victim. In addition, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act which does not violate the social rules. 2) The defendant's act constitutes an unfair sentencing decision of the court below (6 months and 2 years of suspension of execution) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s reasoning for the appeal by the prosecutor is too unfased and unreasonable.

Judgment

A. The judgment of the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles: ① the Defendant and the victim drinking alcohol together on the day of the instant case; ② the Defendant was unable to properly hold the body by drinking the body of the victim; the Defendant, before the accident, left the center of the victim, left the center of the victim, left the center of the victim; and she was flaged by the victim; the victim was 2 and 3 times at a shopping mall, and the victim was flaged by drinking, and she was flaging the head of the body on the floor. In full view of the following, the Defendant was able to predict the death of the victim by drinking only even if the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, and the Defendant was flaged by a relatively detailed statement at an investigative agency.