At around 04:00 on June 11, 201, the Defendant did not lend money to the victim E (the 50 years of age) and the victim while working in the D Line at Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, which led to the dispute with the victim, while going at the above drinking house, and went to the house of the victim in Kimhae-si G by driving the said vehicle on the Defendant's Fright car.

On June 11, 2011, at around 04:50, the Defendant stopped at the request of the victim on the road near the aftermath of Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, and then the victim was said to be “dlehhh” to walking the above car due to the decline from the above car.

The Defendant: (a) dump dumped the victim’s flap and flap face by drinking the victim’s body by hand; and (b) flap the victim’s body, caused the victim to face the left-hand head of the victim.

On June 24, 2011, the Defendant caused the death of the victim due to the blood transfusion from the left side of the hospital in Busan-gu, Busan-gu, Busan-do.

2. Summary of the defendant and his defense counsel

A. The Defendant is not infusing the victim with booming the victim.

B. Even if the Defendant got off the victim, it is reasonable that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act, and thus, constitutes legitimate act, as a considerable act to protect the infringement of his body, or a passive resistance to avoid assault by the other party.

C. Even if an assault against a victim is recognized, the victim was killed only after the victim went beyond the victim in this case. Since there may be room for involvement in other causes, such as special transfer of the victim, medical malpractice, etc., the causal relationship between the defendant's assault and the death of the victim cannot be deemed as exist, and it is extremely exceptional that the victim's death was caused by his own assault to the extent that the victim's body was destroyed by the victim's death. Therefore, the defendant could not anticipate that his own assault would result in the death of the victim.

3. Determination

(a) recognised facts;

According to each evidence, the following circumstances are recognized:

(1) The Defendant, who was aware of the victim’s 15 to 16 years, dysing alcohol with the victim’s friendship I, who was a member of the society, dysing together with the J who was a member of the society.

(2) On June 11, 2011, the victim, together with I and J, had been drinking in the “D Prior Art. D, Kimhae-si,” and the Defendant had contacted the Defendant with the purport of drinking the same alcohol, and the Defendant was on the same day at around 03:39 on the same day. At the time, the Defendant had been under the influence of alcohol.

(3) In the foregoing drinking place, the Defendant indicated that there was an appraisal that he borrowed while lending money to the victim, and that the victim did not lend money to the victim because of the victim's loss of her her ties or her ties when he/she made a transaction between her her ties, but did not reach mutual fighting.

(4) At around 04:00 on the same day, I and J had left the said drinking place, and the victim stated to J that “I et al. (Defendants) have a thickness, dust house, etc.” the victim said that “I et al. (Defendants) will go to the house with a thickness.”

(5) At the time, the victim was in a state where the victim did not take the alcohol because he did not reach the level of normal alcohol, but the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol compared to the victim.

(6) J, I과 헤어진 피고인과 피해자는 그 무렵 피고인이 운전하는 F 모닝 승용차에 같이 타고 김해시 어방동 쪽으로 이동하게 되었는데, 위 승용차 안에서 알 수 없는 이유로 다시 말다툼을 하게 되었고, 김해시청 후문 쪽에 위 승용차를 정차하게 되었다. (7) 피해자는 위 승용차에서 내리면서 조수석 쪽 차문을 걷어찼고, 이를 항의하는 피고인의 오른쪽 눈 부위와 가슴 부위 등을 주먹 등으로 때리는 등 폭행하기 시작하였 (8) 평소 피고인보다 힘이 세고 공격적인 성향을 갖고 있던 피해자로부터 폭행을 당하던 피고인은 피해자에게 유형력을 행사하여 피해자를 바닥에 넘어지게 함으로써 피해자의 왼쪽 머리 부위를 바닥에 부딪히게 하였다.

(9) On the ground that the victim suffered from her head's shock and caused her blood transfusion, the victim was unable to drive the vehicle to India after her abnormal behavior, such as she sees fluor on the road or fluoring herto, etc., and the defendant reported 119 around 05:41 and reported 119 to the effect that "the victim cannot move to the vehicle so that she cannot move to the vehicle because she is too much under the influence of alcohol."

(10) On June 11, 201, the victim was sent back to the K Hospital located in the G Hospital in the Gannam Kim-si, and was sent back to the H Hospital located in Busan and was treated again, the victim died on June 24, 201 on the ground of the 'balone due to the 'balone due to the 'balone due to the 'balone attributable to the 'balone attributable to the 'balone attributable to the 'balone attributable to the 'balone due to the 'balone due to the 'balone due to

B. Determination

(1) While the Defendant asserts that there was no bruption of the victim, the above circumstances are as follows, which can be seen by the evidence, i.e., whether the Defendant first called the police officer called 's ‘at the time when the Defendant was called from the victim', and 'at the time when the police was investigated on June 25, 201, the Defendant called 'at the time when the Defendant was investigated on the floor'. ii) At that time, the Defendant did not easily understand the victim's defense that the victim was above the victim's own head, and the victim did not go against the left-hand head as above. iii) In light of the fact that the Defendant was aware that the Defendant was not the victim's head and was not the victim's head, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant did not respond to the request of a hospital's first-hand hospital.

(2) However, the exercise of the above tangible force against the victim by the defendant is limited to the extent that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was under the influence of assault first from the victim, and the defendant was under the influence of assault, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the above act by the defendant is not illegal as a justifiable act as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, since it is merely an fluent passive defensive act to prevent the victim from assault, and it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to view that it is reasonable to view that it is a legitimate act as stipulated in social norms, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the defendant committed an assault against the victim beyond the passive defensive act (the facts charged by the prosecution is only that the defendant was under the body of the victim of this case).

Therefore, insofar as the act of assault by a defendant constitutes a legitimate act and the crime of assault against a victim is not established, even if the victim's act goes beyond the floor and resulting in death as a result of suffering from the upper part of the head, the crime of assault is not established.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's above act constitutes self-defense under Article 21 (1) of the Criminal Code, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Results of jury deliberation

1. A verdict on whether the crime of death or injury is constituted;

The verdict of innocence by all nine jurors;

2. A verdict on whether the crime of violence is established;

A judgment shall be rendered as ordered on the grounds of not guilty verdict of six jurors, and three jurors' verdict of guilty or more.

Judge Choi Sang-soo

Judges Park Jong-dae