Defendant 2 is not guilty.

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed.

The gist of the grounds for appeal by the Defendants is No. 1 and the summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel are as follows: the Defendants, at the request of the guardian of the victim non-indicted 1, who is a mentally ill person, used the victim's chest in a way that does not go against the social norms, such as using the victim's chest and leaving the victim aground, without any consideration within the church worship, which is a public place, in the participation of the victim's guardian and the general public, for the purpose of treating diseases based on the victim's religious trial, based on the victim's religious trial, and used it in a way that does not go against the social norms, such as using the victim's chest in a way that the victim's chest was aground, and the victim was killed because the victim was an inherent abnormal body such as the heart, be the victim was never aware that the victim was the dead body. Accordingly, the Defendants could not have entirely predicted that the victim was dead due to the me,

① The Defendants’ act is a legitimate act for the treatment of disease.

② There is no causal link between the victim’s death and the Defendants’ act.

③ Since the Defendants’ act of euthanasia does not lead to pain to people or any other harm, it cannot be said that the Defendants’ act of euthanasia is an act that leads to dissipure and stability, and thus, it cannot be said that there is a causal relationship with each other, it is reasonable to rate the Defendants’ act of euthanasia

④ The Defendants’ act is an act with the victim’s consent, which does not go against the ordinary social norms.

⑤ In particular, Defendant 2 did not go through Defendant 1’s 4 days prior to the victim’s death, and did not commit any assault or other harmful acts, and therefore, Defendant 2 did not become a joint principal offender. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts as to each of the above facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Defendant 2’s summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) even if all of the above allegations are without merit, Defendant 2 agreed with the victim and the victim’s side; and (b) Defendant’s social status is clear, the judgment of the sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted by the court below and the testimony at the court of first instance by Nonindicted Party 2, Defendant 1 was requested by the victim’s non-indicted 1’s parents, and the victim did so each day between February 18, 1986 and March 5 of the same year (However, from February 19 to March 23 of the same year, the victim did not have a strong size of the body of the victim for treatment of the above victim’s mental illness. The method of the above spawning was found to have been seated or removed by the victim, and the victim did not have a strong size of the body of the victim, and the victim did not have a strong size of the body of the victim and the body of the victim during the same period. The victim did not have a spawn of the victim’s hair and the body of the victim. The victim was found to have a 5th degree of spawn of the victim’s hair and the body of the victim who died at the bar during the same time.

Based on the above facts of recognition, the first point of appeal is determined based on the first point of view, first point of view, in order to find that an act constitutes a justifiable act as provided in Article 20 of the Criminal Act. In order to recognize that an act constitutes a justifiable act, the act must only be recognized as an act with legitimate means for a legitimate purpose (the legitimacy of the purpose and method), ② in such a case, the means and method should be considerable (the reasonableness of the means and method), ③ the legal interests protected than the legal interests sacrificed by the act should be greater (the legal interest bridge), ④ the act must be urgent and inevitable in light of the circumstances at the time of the act (emergency), ⑤ other means and method other than the act, and there should be no other means and method. In light of the above facts of recognition, the defendant's act must be recognized as an act with legitimate purpose of treating the victim's mental illness, and the remaining requirements, i.e., the means, method, reasonableness of legal interests, bridge, urgency, and urgency requirement are not sufficient to evaluate the act of this case as a justifiable act of this case.

Second, there is no proximate causal relation between the act of the defendant and the death of the victim in this case, where it is acknowledged that the victim caused the death of the victim due to sudden shock of the body, and there is no proximate causal relation between the act of the victim and the death of the victim in this case, because the victim suffered from mental illness for a several years and the victim did not provide sufficient meals for the above time period, and in particular, the victim did not provide sufficient meals on the day of death and was in a very weak state, and the defendant could not have known about the result of the above act of the death even if he knew that there was a considerable probability that the death was caused by the above act of the victim, as well as the result of the above act of the defendant, even though he could have known that there was considerable possibility that the death was aggravated.

Third, in regard to the argument that the act of the defendant does not constitute violence and is merely negligent in this case, it is not an act of assault, since the act of salutism itself is a religious act based on a religious judgment, which is not an act of harm to others. However, in this case, it is clear that the act of the same defendant, other than the act of saluting the victim's chest and head, is an act of saluting the victim's chest and head, and the act of saluting the salute, etc. is an act of assault as prescribed in Article 260 of the Criminal Act by exercising force against the person, and therefore, the above argument based on the opposite opinion is without merit.

Fourth, with respect to the assertion that it is an act by the consent of the victim, the consent of the victim whose illegality is excluded under Article 24 of the Criminal Code should not be contrary to ethical, moral and social norms or public order and good morals. In this case, the defendant requested the victim's parent to take care of the victim's mental illness for the treatment of the victim's mental illness as seen earlier, but it cannot be said that the victim's consent was sufficient to take care of the victim's serious violence to the death. If such consent was obtained in domestic affairs, it would be against social rules and public order and good morals, so the above assertion is not acceptable. Thus, the first ground for appeal of this case cannot be accepted.

Finally, examining all the circumstances that serve as the basis for sentencing specified in the records of this case, including health care, the motive and consequence of the crime of this case, the age, character and conduct, relationship to victims, and circumstances after the crime, as to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below against the same defendant is inappropriate even if considering the circumstances alleged by the same defendant, and it is not recognized that the determination of the sentence imposed by the court below is too unreasonable, and therefore, the argument on the appeal

B. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2

Of the grounds of appeal by Defendant 2, the same defendant, first of all, did not engage in the act of contribution to the occurrence of the result of the instant case, and therefore, according to the various evidences cited by the court below, the defendant's act of removing the victim's chest from February 19, 1986 to February 23, 1988 is acknowledged to be the fact that the defendant was at least 30 minutes to 1 hour, such as the act of removing the victim's chest by assisting the defendant 1 in the above Ansan-gu city, and the act of removing the victim's chest was divided into 30 minutes to 1 hour and 30 minutes to 30 minutes for 5 days from February 19, 1986.

However, according to the above evidence, the defendant participated only in the safe season until the 23th day of the same month, and there was no participation in the safe season thereafter, and the above victim's body did not appear any particular physical condition until then. On March 5, 15:00 of the same year, it can be recognized that the defendant continued to have been aware of the fact that the victim died on his own, for 10 days until the victim died in the safe season. As seen above, in light of the above facts, such as the day in which the defendant 2 participated in the safe season, the date of the victim's death, the contents of the defendant's act, etc., it cannot be concluded that the above victim died due to the same act of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this, and therefore, the defendant cannot be punished for the crime of assault in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since Defendant 1’s appeal is without merit, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and Defendant 2’s appeal is with merit, it is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the same Act and it is again decided as follows.

The summary of the facts charged against Defendant 2 is as follows: between February 18, 1986 and February 23, 1986, and between February 18, 1986 and December 23, 198, Defendant 1 constitutes an act of violence with Defendant 1 in cooperation with Defendant 1, and between February 18, 198 and December 23, 23, 200, for the victim non-indicted 1 (the victim non-indicted 1) who is a mentally ill person in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (the third-party address omitted) on a daily basis, she was streaking that he was streaking due to the mental illness of his woman, she was streaking his finger and her head, chest, etc., or forcedly divided him into her, and there is no evidence to prove that there was a causal relation between the above act of Defendant 2 and the above act of death of the victim under the latter part of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no evidence to prove that there was the causal relation between the above Defendant 35.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge)