1. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment as partially admitted by the lower court, the lower court determined that the proximate causal relation between the deceased and the deceased’s death in performance of official duties cannot be acknowledged on the grounds that, by comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, it is difficult to view that the deceased’s excessive stress caused by the death, which led to suicide or by the aggravation of the king witness depression due to stress beyond natural progress, and rather, the depression of the deceased’s depression cannot be deemed to have led to suicide due to the death of the deceased. Rather, it is adequate and complete nature to the extent that the deceased’s emerculation is excessive, e.g., the change of work in line with the transition from the 40th latter to the 50th half,

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. “Death caused by official duties” under Article 4 subparag. 13(a) of the former Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Act No. 10471, Mar. 29, 201; hereinafter “former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State”) refers to cases where there is a proximate causal relation between the death of a public official and his/her death. This also applies to cases of suicide, which is self-injury. Thus, even if the proximate causal relation exists between the death and the death of a public official, it shall not be excluded from a person of distinguished services to the State on the ground that the death was caused by suicide or was not committed under the condition that the free will was completely excluded (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Du27363, Jun. 18, 2012). In addition, the proximate causal relation between the death caused by official duties and the death caused by suicide, however, should be proved in the assertion of such causal relation.

Therefore, in a case where a public official is presumed to have caused or aggravated illness, such as depression due to overwork or stress in the line of duty, or to have caused or aggravated a disease due to overlapped major causes of a disease such as depression in the line of duty, etc., and where it is difficult to expect reasonable judgment due to such disease, there may be considerable causal link between the performance of official duties and the death in a situation where it is difficult to expect reasonable judgment due to such disease (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Du32898, Jun. 11, 2015). In addition, in order to acknowledge such proximate causal relationship, comprehensive consideration should be given of all the circumstances such as the occurrence of the disease, such as the content, nature, and work quantity, and intensity of the duty performed by the person who committed the suicide, as well as the general symptoms, the age of the person who committed the suicide, physical and psychological situation, surrounding circumstances at which the person was faced with the person who committed the suicide, and the developments leading to the suicide (see, e.g.

B. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment partially admitted by the lower court reveals the following facts.

① From January 1, 200 to November 1, 200, the Deceased was appointed as the head of the unit of the reserve forces belonging to the instant unit, and on November 1, 2009, the Deceased was determined as the person to be selected as the head of the regional unit of the E reserve forces due to the reorganization of reserve forces and performed duties such as preparing the creation of regional units from that time. From January 1, 2010, the Deceased performed duties as a regional commander

② Since November 1, 2009, the duties performed by the deceased, including securing a regional substitute office and preparing a creation of a regional unit, were different from those of the former commander of the reserve forces, and it seems to have been difficult for the deceased to perform their duties due to his failure to cooperate with E in the process. The duties performed by the deceased as a regional commander from January 1, 2010, which took charge of the duties as a regional commander from January 1, 201, were much higher than those of the former commander of the reserve forces.

③ From April 14, 2001, the Deceased, who served as the commander of the reserve forces, received treatment due to a recurrence of depression, and discontinued treatment on or around November 24, 2003. However, on or around December 29, 2009, the Deceased was determined as the person to be assigned to the commander of the regional group, and began to undergo treatment again due to a recurrence of depression, and the symptoms worse, and thus, he/she began to undergo treatment again on or around December 29, 2009, when he/she prepares to create the regional group. < Amended by Act No. 10293, Apr. 30, 201

On May 11, 2010, at around 19:35 on May 201, 201, the patient was hospitalized due to an eule Eulphe and mixed uneule disorder (hereinafter referred to as “instant mental illness”). Around 11, the patient was killed with the window of the sick room.

④ The Deceased, on the day of suicide, she opened a saw and its surrounding suicide, presented extreme unstable symptoms, such as her opening, etc. The Head of a hospital shows that the Deceased’s symptoms, such as anxiety caused by stress on his/her duties, early distress, depression, and disability on the surface of water, etc., were incurred from mid- December 2009, and hospitalized during hospital treatment, and symptoms, such as excessive coercion of duties, lack of self-esteem, and anxiety, continue to exist, and that he/she appears to have committed suicide in difficult conditions to determine and impulse. Examining these facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Deceased appears to have suffered serious stress due to changes in duties related to the establishment of a regional reserve force, etc., and it is difficult to view that there was a possibility that the Deceased might have been suffering from mental distress on the day of his/her death on the day of his/her own, and that there was considerable mental instability on the day of his/her death, and that there was no possibility that he/she might have been suffering from mental instability on the day of his/her death.

D. Nevertheless, the court below did not closely examine the background and motive of the deceased's suicide, and denied the causal relationship between the deceased's death and the performance of official duties for the reasons stated in its reasoning. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the proximate causal relationship between the deceased's death and the death under the former Act on Persons of Distinguished Services to the State, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok