On March 5, 2008, the Defendant was a staff member of the Daegu subway Corporation, and was working in the Daegu subway Station (Consumer Guidance Center) located in the 2nd floor in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, C underground, and had the victim E (68 years of age) under the influence of alcohol in front of the ticket office observe a serious bath while taking the fingers toward the ticket office. While coming out of the ticket office, the victim continued to take a bath without any reason, and had the victim take a bath at once on the floor, and the Defendant caused the victim’s death to the head of the body. The Defendant caused damage to the victim’s injury to the Gandong-gu, Daegu-gu, where he was under medical treatment on March 7, 2008. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20720, Mar. 18, 2008>

2. Determination

If it is recognized that the defendant's act was only an able passive defensive act to escape from the victim's illegal attack and thus, it is recognized that the act lacks illegality that is acceptable by social norms as a result of that act, even if the victim died (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do464, Oct. 26, 1987). We examine whether the defendant's act of this case is merely an able passive defensive act against the illegal attack and thus, its illegality can be dismissed.

According to the following: (a) the Defendant was faced with the head part of the Defendant’s body by being pushed off on the floor by being pushed off one time with the victim’s left shoulder part as in the facts charged; and (b) the fact that the victim died is recognized as a result of the Defendant’s death.

However, according to the witness H, I and L's statements, etc., when they were drunk, they exceeded the above subway history's stairs while under influence of alcohol. The victim, while breathing the stairs after the above breath, took a bath in the above breath and then breath in the front of the breath box, he was in a state of breathy so that he could not properly breath the body of the victim. ② At the time, the victim was in a state of bad health conditions, such as severe urbry, etc., ③ The victim was in a service room, and the victim was in a state of breathy, whether he was a breathy, and that the defendant was only a breathy, and the victim was in a state of breathy to protect the victim's body by breathy, and the victim was in a state of breathy to the extent that he was unable to breathy by social norms.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the above act of the defendant does not constitute a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Excellent

Judges Civil Service Bureau