Attorney Choi Han-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Jeonjin-gu Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office 1

Representative of Law and Lee Jae-Nam

The number of copies of a litigation performer;

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 6/7 of the costs of lawsuit is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the remainder 1/7 is assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the whole purport of the pleadings in the descriptions and images of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5-2, 1-2, 2-2, 2-1 through 3, 5-7, 3-1, 4-4, 5-1, 5-1, 6-1, 6-1, 5-1 of Eul evidence 11-1, and 11-1.

A. The acceptance of Non-party Kim Jong-chul and his relation with Non-party ○○

(1) On November 9, 2007, Non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") was arrested on charges of larceny of night buildings at night, etc. on the part of the organization of the "former Emphmph," which is a criminal organization, and issued a detention warrant following the following day. On the 14th day of the same month, he was transferred to the Jeonju prison, and was classified as the first offense for non-party 1, 25 (including the first offense for non-party 1). After that, the deceased was classified as a non-party 1, 16 November 207 as a non-party 25 (including the first offense for non-party 1) and was detained in the office for non-party 1, 2007, based on the classification and acceptance related to the opposite organization (i.e., 'former age', 'S. 1' and 'P. 2').

(2) On October 12, 2007, the head of ○○○, a criminal organization, was detained as a man in charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activities of an organization, etc.) (the facts of suspicion on January 18, 2007: on January 21, 2007, the head of ○○○, a criminal organization, was detained as a second offender under the pretext of raising the discipline of the organization, and was classified as a second offender and was detained as a second offender in the office of the head of the previous correctional institution in order to be detained in the office of the head of the previous correctional institution.

(3) The Deceased testified on December 11, 2007 to the effect that it would be favorable for ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but later, the Deceased gave a letter to the public prosecutor in charge of the previous principal’s office on January 11, 2008 that he would reveal the truth about the above case. On January 22, 2008, the Deceased sent a letter to the public prosecutor in charge of the previous principal’s office on January 11, 2008, at an interview with the above vice-principal of the end-gu, the deceased could live on the basis of “uns/he will make a living on the day of the foregoing 1,2,000s.” On the other hand, once the ○○○○○○○.

(4) On January 23, 2008, the above head of ○○, after hearing the opinion that the deceased reversed his testimony as above from the attorney-at-law in charge, and around the same day, around 16:00, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 2008 Goju District Court Decision 2008Da143 decided on the same day, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is, in front of the first head office 21 room where the deceased was admitted, and the deceased "I am dead, because I am dead, I am dead, and I am dead, because I do not refuse to do so, I do so." The head of ○○ was indicted as a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and thus, he was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months in the previous District Court Decision 2008Da143 decided on the same day.

(5) On January 23, 2008, the Deceased sent a letter to the father Kim Il-young, stating that “I would have been punished by 19 staff members of the age group due to his/her fault. It would be too difficult for the deceased to do so, or that I would like to be mixed with him/her. I would have to release him/her from his/her will according to this opportunity.”

(6) On January 30, 2008, the Deceased filed a new interview with the above A, and requested for protection and confinement, which means that “the 2 and 3 staff members of the same group will be no longer living in the same private room as the ○○○.” The above A obtained approval from the head of the previous prison, and taken measures to protect the Deceased in the 20 room of the previous prison in order to prevent assault accidents, etc.

(7) On February 3, 2008, around 23:00, a person in charge discovered that the deceased was able to string the strings by making string the windows in the toilets of a ward, and transferred the deceased to an emergency room at the Jeonbuk University Hospital. However, on February 4, 2008, the deceased died at around 6:04.

B. The progress of the trial and the progress of the attendance of the Deceased

(1) On June 29, 2007, the Deceased was indicted on the charge of forging private documents, etc. on July 18, 2007 on the charge of violation of the Road Traffic Act (driving) and on September 10, 2007 on the charge of larceny. As above, the Deceased was detained on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes on November 22, 2007, and was prosecuted on the charge of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activities of organizations, etc.) on November 1, 2008. On January 18, 2008, the Jeonju District Court rendered a decision to jointly examine the above cases.

(2) The Deceased appeared in the court on November 27, 2007 and December 18, 2008 for the examination of each of the above cases. On the other hand, the Deceased appeared in the Jeonju District Court on December 11, 2007 and January 22, 2008 as a legal witness in relation to the above violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (the composition and activities of an organization, etc.).

C. The deceased’s heir is his father, who is his father.

2. Existence of liability for damages

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

In light of the above OO, etc., the deceased was unable to make statements and testimony about the crime committed by the 'former Age and Emph, who was an employee of the same group, including the above OO, etc., and was committed suicide in a solitary ward on January 10, 2008 in the situation where his life is anticipated to be kept in custody for a long time. However, the officer of the previous prison of the defendant, who was well aware of such circumstances, could have sufficiently predicted that the deceased was at risk of attempted suicide even after January 10, 2008, the officer of the previous prison of the defendant, who was a public official under Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act, has a duty of care to prevent the death from the failure of the deceased by taking measures to prevent the suicide. Accordingly, the defendant was obligated to pay consolation money from the deceased x 00 days to the plaintiff x 28134, 204, 2004 won x 304, 2004 won x 304 won / 204. / 205 days / / 2004.

(2) The defendant's assertion

In light of the following facts, the Defendant: (a) the Deceased was confined in the previous prison, and was able to adapt to his life in the court and make efforts to defend himself; and (b) on February 4, 2008 after the Deceased was confined in the solitary ward, the Defendant did not appear to have a special action before his suicide attempted; (c) the previous prison designated the Deceased as a person subject to protection and took measures for the prevention of violence, such as prohibiting simultaneous opening of the ward with the above head of the prison; (d) preventing mutual contact at the time of sports and meeting; and (e) taking measures necessary to protect the Deceased, such as separation from his ward at his request; (d) the Deceased’s suicide attempted on January 10, 2008; and (d) the Deceased was promptly transferred to an external hospital at the time of the accident; (d) the prison officers belonging to the previous prison were unable to have a large number of family members of the Deceased, and thus, the Defendant did not neglect the deceased’s personal protection or management of his own suicide.

(b) Fact of recognition;

There is no dispute between the following parties, Gap evidence 5-6 through 8, 10, 13, 15, 16 through 19, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 2-5, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 9-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 5-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-2, Eul evidence 10-2, evidence 10-2, evidence 10-2, evidence 10-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 9-2, each evidence 5-1, evidence 9-2, evidence 5-1, and evidence 9-1, evidence 5-2, and evidence 5-1, evidence 5-1, evidence 5-2, and evidence 9-1, evidence 5-1, each of the following evidence 1-2, and evidence 1-2, evidence 5-1, evidence 1-2, and 9-1, evidence 1-2.

(1) Around October 27, 2006, the Minister of Justice instructed the head of each regional correction headquarters to take measures to prevent suicide accidents of prisoners occurring in the correctional institution, and instruct the head of each regional correction headquarters to thoroughly guide and supervise them.

(2) The contents of the above preventive measure against suicide accident were composed of the analysis of the current situation of suicide accident, problems and countermeasures. ① The analysis of 75 cases of suicide accident occurred in a correctional institution from 200 to October 19, 206, the place of suicide accident, including disciplinary action and assistance, 69%, and 74 persons except one person, committed suicide in their own ward. The method of suicide is 50%, and 74 persons other than one person committed suicide were used in their own way, so that they could easily take measures around the surrounding areas, such as 33 persons (4%) who committed suicide, committed suicide by using a string line, so that the 1string line and 1string line, etc. of the 1string line, and thus, the 1string line and 1string line, etc. of the 1string line, and the 2nd anniversary of the 1string line, the 1string line and 2ndring line, etc., the 30th anniversary of suicide risk of suicide, etc.

(3) Nonparty B, who is a correctional officer of the above A and the previous correctional institution, and the above C received education on the prevention of suicide of prisoners.

(4) On January 10, 2008, the deceased's testimony and statement (A) around 08:10 on January 10, 2008, the deceased applied for an interview with the above B, which is an assistant principal of the clean-gu office, and the above B demanded an explanation about the contents of the interview to the effect that the interview should be conducted according to the procedure, but the deceased was unable to have avoided the disturbance due to the desire of the above B. In order to investigate the deceased, the deceased's testimony and statement (B) was made to the above A.

(B) While the above Gap asked the deceased to the effect that he was unable to cause a disturbance because he did not immediately send the disturbance to the above B, the deceased responded to the purport that he was unable to cause a disturbance, the deceased continued to go through the disturbance, and ordered the above C (counseling assistant) to enter the solitary ward (Ban 20) to file a petition and investigate the deceased, and then participated in the safety management and investigation.

(C) After 30 to 40 minutes of the deceased’s confinement in the above solitary cell, the deceased collected tears from the deceased, and reported this to the above A. After the deceased’s interview, the above A and the deceased followed the above B, and returned the deceased again to the first company room and the 21st office. On the same day, the deceased requested the interview with the above A to re-enter the above questions of the reversal of the testimony with respect to the above ○○○○○.

(D) On the other hand, in the case of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes against the above Chapter ○○○, the above B, C, and A appeared as a witness on October 30, 2008, and testimony was made as follows: (i) the above B was aware that it was discovered that the deceased had her string," and (ii) the above C was a witness, so it was necessary for the deceased to give up the string of the string, which was cited in his hand, and therefore, there was a timely testimony, and therefore, the testimony was made in mind that it was possible to give testimony to the deceased, “I would not have a string,” regardless of why it was necessary to do so? Even if so, I would like to see that I would be able to see that it was a suicide report.”

(E) At the time of January 10, 2008, the above C did not look at the condition of the deceased’s title as of January 10, 2008, and did not report to the above A that the tear was collected due to the possibility of suicide, and the above A did not confirm the condition of the deceased’s title, and the tear did not provide counseling with the deceased in mind with regard to the possibility of suicide.

(f) The deceased is a psychiatrist from January 10, 2008 to February 4, 2008.

There is no room to receive counseling, medical treatment, etc. with the physician or to receive an inspection, etc. on the risk factors of suicide.

(1) Since a confined person confined in a confinement facility of a prison, etc. is unable to leave the facility at his/her own will and is deprived of his/her freedom of conduct, the manager of the facility is obligated to ensure the safety of the inmate's life and body. However, the content and degree of the duty to ensure the safety of the inmate's body and body should not be determined depending on the physical and mental situation of the confined person, physical and personal situation of the facility, and time and place circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Da25136, Feb. 25, 200).

(2) According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the deceased was aware of the situation that the former prison was unable to take measures to protect the deceased from danger of suicide on January 10, 208 or that the former prison was unable to take measures to protect the deceased from danger of suicide on the ground that the former prison was unable to take necessary measures to protect the deceased from danger of suicide on the part of 10, and that the former prison was unable to take appropriate measures to protect the deceased from danger of suicide on the part of 10, and that the former prison was unable to take appropriate measures to protect them from danger of suicide on the part of 10, and that the latter prison was unable to take appropriate measures to protect them from danger of suicide on the part of 10, and that the latter C was unable to take appropriate measures to protect them from danger of suicide on the part of 10, and that the latter C was unable to take appropriate measures to protect them from danger of suicide on the part of the latter.

The statement of No. 8 on the basis of the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and as to the fact that correctional officers of the Jeonju Prison intentionally concealed attempted suicide on January 10, 2008 of the Deceased, it is insufficient to recognize it by the evidence of the Plaintiff’s submission, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. B. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the above part is without merit).

In light of all circumstances, such as the above foundation and facts of recognition, the deceased had the capacity to make self-determination of the danger of his body, etc., but it was difficult for the above C and A to clearly recognize the suicide of the deceased on account of the following: (a) psychological anxiety on convict life, the unfortunate mind to their families, and the unfortunate appraisal and retaliation against the steering staff under the above criminal trial; (b) the occurrence of this error was caused by the occurrence of the loss; (c) the former prison is living in a large number of visitors compared to the physical facilities; (d) it is difficult for the limited staff to fully grasp their attitudes; and (e) it was difficult for the deceased to fully grasp their attitudes; and (e) it was difficult for C and A to recognize the suicide of the deceased on the basis of the following circumstances: (a) the rate of negligence of the deceased is limited to 85% and 815% of the negligence of the deceased; and (b) it is reasonable for the Defendant to limit the rate of negligence of the deceased to 815%.

3. Scope of liability for damages;

In addition to the following, it is as shown in the attached sheet of calculation of damages (the money less than the cost for convenience in calculating the amount of damages shall be dumped, hereinafter the same shall apply).

(a) The deceased’s lost profits;

The loss of lost income equivalent to the total monetary value of the lost capacity of the deceased is 213,125,440 won calculated at the present price at the time of the accident of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “cost below and below a month shall be discarded in the convenience of calculation, and in principle, the period shall be calculated on a monthly basis, based on the following facts of recognition and evaluation:

(1) Facts of recognition and evaluation

(A) Personal information

The basic matters in the attached Form of the calculation sheet of damages shall be as shown.

(b) Domicile and income status;

At the time of the accident, the Deceased was mainly residing in the Jeonju city, which is an urban area, and shall be calculated by the Urban Daily Labor Wage (60,547 won a day) of an adult male as of the first half of 2008 as sought by the Plaintiff.

(C) Maximum working age and operating days

In the absence of the instant accident, the deceased was able to obtain an amount equivalent to the wages of an urban daily worker for 439 months until he reaches the age of 60, a maximum working age, as a remaining life period on a 22th day of each month (However, although the deceased was under confinement at the time of the instant accident, it was anticipated that the result of criminal trial against the deceased was anticipated, and thus, it included a convict period during which the deceased could not obtain net profit. Meanwhile, even if it is difficult to specifically determine the present rate of a single pension because the deceased could not know the specific sentence of the deceased because he died before the said criminal case was sentenced, it is reasonable to set the present rate of a single pension as 240) in this case.

(d) Deductions for living expenses: 1/3 of revenues;

(2) Calculation

60,547 won ¡¿ 22 days ¡¿ 240 = 213,125,440 won

B. Limitation on liability

(1) The defendant's liability ratio: 15%

(2) Calculation

The deceased’s lost income: 31,968,816 won (=213,125,440 won x 15%). Each consolation money for the deceased and the Plaintiff shall be 31,968,816 won.

(1) Reasons for taking into account: the deceased’s age, property, and educational degree; the background of the suicide accident in this case; the relationship with the Plaintiff; and all other circumstances revealed in the arguments in this case.

(2) The amount determined;

(1) Deceased: 5,000,000 won

② Plaintiff: 500,000 won

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 37,468,816 won (=31,968,816 won + 5,000,000 won + 500,000 won) and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 20% per annum under the Civil Act from February 4, 2008, which is the date of the death of this case, to December 23, 2009, which is the date of the decision of this case where it is deemed reasonable to dispute about the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Maximum Financial Resources

Judges, Chief Judge

A person shall be appointed.

【Basic Matters】