(b) Abandonment of a corpse;

2.2.B

Attorney Cho Chang-cheon (for the defendant B)

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for three years for Defendant A, and for two years for Defendant B from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To order the Defendants to provide community service for 120 hours each time.

Defendant A shall be ordered to prohibit the operation, employment, and actual labor of child-related institutions for five years.

A. Defendant A

1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the suicide of the baby)

Defendant A, in other words, was born in a house toilets where it is difficult to take immediate medical measures, only 23 weeks of re-building period. Even if the Defendant had taken relief measures against the victim, the causal relationship between the omission of the Defendant who left the victim and the death of the victim is not recognized unless it is proved that the victim was alive even if the Defendant did not take relief measures against the victim. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous, or by misapprehending

2) Unreasonable sentencing

The punishment of the lower court (five years of imprisonment, ten years of employment restriction order for children-related periods) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B

The punishment of the court below (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by Defendant A

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, Defendant A left the victim at the time of a toilet change, thereby resulting in the victim’s death.

1) From May 18, 2019 to the date of the occurrence of the instant case, Defendant A was able to find out that she was born at the time when she saw a streke because he/she had flicked the streke for eight days, and even if Defendant A was obviously anticipated that it would be difficult to take measures for the survival of a baby if the fetus was born while he/she tried to give birth at home, he/she was born at home.

2) After giving birth, Defendant A clearly perceived that the victim was living at the victim’s sound and her family members or 119, who had been able to receive appropriate medical measures to care for the victim’s hospital through his/her family members or 119, Defendant A gave birth to the victim from 14:12 to 15:01, at least 49 minutes of illegal abortion sales site online counselors and post-delivery, giving and taking out Kakakao Kakao Stockholm messages on treatment after delivery, and neglected the victim’s physical speed.

3) The principal private person of the victim is a low pulmonary and low pulmonary symptoms due to difficulty, and it is reasonable to view that the victim was the direct cause of leaving the victim neglected for a long time in the water speed that the vehicle was driven immediately after the birth by the defendant A as seen in the above paragraph (1).

4) According to the questioning reply of the J Hospital, K Hospital, and L Hospital, the victim's re-born period (23 to 23 days) pursuant to the defendant's assertion exceeds the minimum number of pregnant women (22 weeks) that can survive, and thus, it is not impossible to survive through the newborn baby's survival rate of 23 weeks is 39.6%, and the survival rate of the newborn baby of 24 weeks is 56.8%. Thus, the defendant took immediate action within his home (such as household, Bohdo maintenance, removal of this material) and sent the victim to a medical institution to undergo a newborn baby, it seems that the victim could survive or at least the result of the victim's death would have been delayed.

B. On the other hand, the court below's decision that found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

3. Determination on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing

A. The life of a person can not be waived in any case and absolutely protected, and the life of a child born on the side cannot be an exception, and the life or death of a child cannot be determined depending on the will or ability of the father. The defendant A left the position of the guardian to protect the victim born on the side, but left the side as it is, thereby causing the death by leaving the victim in the side as it is. The behavior of the defendant A, who left the world with the brightness of the brightness, cannot defend against what is the brightness, and thus, the crime is heavy. The defendant B, as the father-child of the victim, abandoned the victim's life clothes killed by her mother, and abandoned the victim's body directly with the defendant A and the victim's body. In light of the substance of the crime, the defendants' act is very poor.

B. However, the Defendants did not have any specific punishment power except for a minor fine, and Defendant A had been caused to each of the crimes of this case due to fear of humiliation and fear of criticism in the extreme interest situation immediately after delivery, and the circumstances were taken into account in the course of each of the crimes of this case. Defendant B, as a substitute for one’s own crime, has taken the fact of the crime, and is in depth divided into depth. Defendant B recognized the crime of abandonment from the court below to the court below, recognized the crime of abandonment of the body from the court below to the court below, and divided the mistake in depth. Each of the crimes of this case, each of the crimes of this case is eventually deemed to be the Defendants themselves, and the case appears to remain in the future, as well as the following facts: the Defendants’ age, character, environment, the process and consequence of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors indicated in the records and arguments of this case, are too unfair.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act as the defendants' appeal is well-grounded, and it is again decided as follows.

【Discretionary Judgment】

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and the evidence recognized by this court is the same as that of the original judgment, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A: Articles 251(a) and 161(1)(a) of the Criminal Act, 161(a)(a) of the Criminal Act, each choice of imprisonment

○ Defendant B: Article 161(1) of the Criminal Act (a) and choice of imprisonment

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (the defendants);

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

1. A community service order (defendants);

Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code

1. An employment restriction order;

○ Defendant A: Article 29-3(1) of the Child Welfare Act

Judges Park Jae-chul

Judges Hwang Young-young