The term "public official's disease, which is the requirement for the payment of bereaved family's compensation under the Public Officials Pension Act, must have a causal relationship between the public official's disease and the disease caused by the public official's performance of official duties. However, even if the main cause of the disease is not directly related to the public official's duty, if the disease overlaps with the main cause of the disease and resulted in the disease, the causal relationship should be deemed to exist. Also, the disease caused by excessive work should be included in the basic disease that can be ordinarily worked at ordinary times or the existing disease rapidly aggravated at a speed above natural progress due to excessive work. In determining whether it falls under a disease caused by official duties, the proximate causal relationship between official duties and death should be determined based on the health and physical conditions of the public official concerned, not on the average (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Nu19030, Feb. 25, 1994; 96Nu6103, Sept. 6, 1996).

After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, the court below determined that the deceased's duties were deemed to have caused easy booming by considering the deceased's health and physical condition, not general average, and that the deceased's high blood pressure, its heart urology, and urology, etc., which are the existing diseases of the deceased who could be caused by acute flaging due to these accumulated urology, etc. are likely to rapidly aggravated due to the natural progress beyond the natural progress and caused the death. In light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's findings and determination of facts are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to causation between official duties and death, etc.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)