In a case where Eul, who served as a mental health doctor of Eul's hospital, died in knife with knife and snife with snife by snife with snife by snife with sniff by snife with snife with the patient, and Eul's spouse, died while performing rescue efforts against other employees," although the Minister of Health and Welfare rejected the application for justice on the ground that "the Minister of Health and Welfare cannot be deemed to have performed direct and affirmative rescue activities under Article 2 of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service for the Aged," the case holding that the above rejection disposition should be revoked on the ground that Eul's spouse's act other than the duties provided for in Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the above Act, and constitutes a deceased person who was killed

The case where the Minister of Health and Welfare rendered a disposition rejecting a request for justice on the ground that “A’s spouse was dead while making rescue efforts to other employees in the situation where B was threatened by A’s disease” pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act on Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons who Died and Dead for Public Good (hereinafter “Act on Persons Wounded and wounded for Public Good”), but the Minister of Health and Welfare did not directly and actively rescue the deceased and wounded for the reason that “A cannot be deemed to have committed any direct and affirmative rescue activity under Article 2 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons Wounded and wounded for Public Good.”

The case holding that it is an act of attacking soldiers, such as locking the door of the medical room and cutting the knife, but not only Eul but also those who were in hospital at the time, could be the target of attack by sick; Eul, who was a mental health specialist and sick doctor, seems to have been aware of such circumstances; Eul, who was absent from the medical room and taken shelter, took the dynamics such as nurses, and knife the nurse, etc.; and "Dobbb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb kb k's action at the above time of attack.

Article 2 subparag. 1 and 2, Article 3(1)1, and Article 5(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished or Deceased for Public Good

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Kim Min-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Minister of Health and Welfare (Law Firm Corporation, Attorneys Exclusive et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 18, 2020

1. On June 25, 2019, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting recognition as a doctor against the Plaintiff is revoked.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On December 31, 2018, the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”) who is the spouse of the Plaintiff was killed in knife and in chrone by the non-party 2, who is his own patient, while working as the mental health doctor of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ○○○ Hospital (hereinafter “the instant hospital”) located in ( Address omitted) (hereinafter “the instant crime”).

B. On March 4, 2019, the Plaintiff, via the head of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the Mayor of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, filed an application for recognition with the Defendant on the deceased pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Act on the Honorable Treatment of and Support for Persons of Distinguished Service for the Deceased and wounded for the reason that “the deceased died while making rescue efforts against other employees under the circumstances where the deceased was threatened by Nonparty 2.”

C. Accordingly, the Defendant rendered the instant disposition rejecting the Plaintiff’s application for recognition of deceased and wounded noble persons on June 25, 2019, on the ground that “the deceased and wounded noble persons cannot be deemed to have performed direct and affirmative rescue activities under Article 2 of the Act” following the review and decision by the Committee for Review of Persons Wounded and wounded for Public Good.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff left Nonparty 3 of the nurse Nonparty 2 while taking part in the damaged clinic. After taking part in the clinic, the Plaintiff evacuated Nonparty 2 as a corridor that may lead to the attack of Nonparty 2 to give up the safe evacuation route, such as emergency stairs and other clinics, and to inform other people of the risks, and taken shelter to Nonparty 2. The Plaintiff directly and actively rescued the nurse in the nursing room by stopping so as to make the nurse report and take her hand off, and became aware of the risks. This is an act of direct and affirmative rescue. The Deceased, among the above rescue activities, was driven by Nonparty 2 again and died of the instant crime during which Nonparty 2 was driving away from Nonparty 2, and thus, the Deceased constitutes a doctor, and the instant disposition that refused to apply for recognition by the Plaintiff is unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

[Attachment] The entry is as follows.

C. Facts of recognition

1) Nonparty 2 (date of birth omitted) was hospitalized in the hospital of this case as “an adult male with a height of 178 cm and weight of 85 km, and around September 23, 2015, Nonparty 2 (date of birth omitted) committed an act, such as knife, with female and female students, to put in the emergency room of the hospital of this case, and was hospitalized in the hospital of this case as “a bipolartic dynamic disorder accompanied by attack and deceased.” From the same day until October 12 of the same year, Nonparty 2 was hospitalized in the hospital of this case by Nonparty 2 at the time.

2) On December 31, 2018, the Deceased used a mental health clinic No. 13 (the next, a photo No. 11 / No. 11 / 1) of the 3rd, 2018, and the door inside the treatment room No. 13 is connected to the treatment room No. 12 (the next, a photo No. 11 / No. 11 / 1 / 1) in the next side. The inside structure of the treatment room No. 13 is as follows (a photograph No. 2A No. 11 / 1 / 3). The following documents are documents connected to the treatment room No. 12 (a photograph No. 2A No. 11 / 3). In addition, [a photograph No. 1111] of the branch, the nurse, and Nonparty 3 and the nursing nurse were working in the name of Nonparty 4 in the vicinity of the treatment room.

[Lics 1 A No. 11]:

[ photograph 2 A No. 11 3]:

3) Specific details of the instant crime are as follows.

A) On December 31, 2018, Nonparty 2 purchased a blade (32.5 cm in total length, 21 cm) and moved to the instant hospital. On the same day, Nonparty 2 received outpatients from the department of mental health of the instant hospital around 15:59. On the same day, Nonparty 2 provided treatment to Nonparty 2. Nonparty 2 at around 17:39 on the same day, and Nonparty 2 provided the Plaintiff with a knife after discharge. Nonparty 2 provided a knife with a knife’s knife and knife’s knife and knife’s knife’s knife and knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s knife’s 13.

나) 한편 13번 진료실 밖에 있던 소외 3은 13번 진료실에서 문이 잠기는 소리가 나자, 만약의 사태를 대비하여 13번 진료실과 연결된 12번 진료실의 전등을 켜면서 문을 열었고, 그 순간 13번 진료실에서 12번 진료실을 거쳐 복도로 나오려 하는 망인과 마주쳤으며, 망인은 소외 3에게 “도망가.”라고 말하면서 그대로 12번 진료실의 문을 통해 위 [사진 1 갑 제11호증 1]의 ‘㉱’ 지점을 향해 뛰어갔다. 소외 3은 망인이 12번 진료실을 나온 직후 12번 진료실의 문을 닫으려고 시도하였으나, 소외 2는 12번 진료실의 문이 닫히기 전에 12번 진료실을 빠져 나와 곧바로 소외 3에게 달려들었고, 아래 [사진 3 갑 제4호증 영상 17:43:15]와 같이 오른쪽 다리가 12번 진료실 앞 의자와 부딪히면서 잠시 멈칫하는 사이에 소외 3은 위 [사진 1 갑 제11호증 1]의 피난구 방향(망인이 뛰어간 위 ‘㉱’ 지점과 반대방향이다)으로 뛰어갔다. 앞서 위 ‘㉱’ 지점을 향해 뛰어가던 망인은 뒤를 돌아보면서 위 ‘㉱’ 지점에서 멈추었고, 그와 동시에 소외 2와 소외 3의 모습을 확인하였다.

[ photograph 3 No. 4 No. 17:43:15]

다) 망인은 소외 2와 소외 3을 바라보면서 자신의 우측에 있는 위 [사진 1 갑 제11호증 1]의 ‘㉰’ 지점의 접수처에 위치한 소외 4에게 손짓을 하면서 “신고해! 도망가!”라고 말하였고, 소외 2는 멈칫하는 사이에 소외 3이 도망가자 추격을 포기하고 자신의 뒤쪽에서 위와 같이 행동하는 망인의 모습을 보았다[아래 사진 4 갑 제4호증 영상 17:43:15]. 소외 2는 다시 망인을 쫓아가기 시작하였고, 망인도 자신을 향해 뛰어오는 소외 2를 보고 위 [사진 1 갑 제11호증 1]의 ‘㉲’ 지점으로 뛰어가면서[아래 사진 5 갑 제4호증 영상 17:43:18], 위 ‘㉲’ 지점 근처의 18번 진료실 주변에 있던 간호사 소외 5에게 “경찰에 전화 좀 해주세요.”라고 말하였다. 망인은 소외 2가 망인을 다시 추격하기 시작한 지 약 6초 후 위 ‘㉲’ 지점에서 미끄러져 넘어지면서 소외 2에 의하여 이 사건 범행을 당하였다. 소외 2가 이 사건 범행을 저지른 직후 이 사건 병원의 보안요원이 범행현장에 도착하여 소외 2를 제지하였고, 소외 2는 같은 날 17:50경 신고를 받고 출동한 경찰관에 의해 체포되었다.

[ photograph 4 No. 4 No. 17:43:15]

[ photograph 5 A No. 4 Videos 17:43:18]

D) At the time, the Deceased was wearing the substance sloter and Nonparty 2, respectively, and the time spent by the Deceased to permit Nonparty 2’s drilling from the point of “Yeaeae 1 A / [No. 11] / [Yae 1] / [Yae 1] / The time spent from the point of “Yae 1” to 11 seconds.

4) In the police investigation conducted on December 31, 2018 and the prosecution investigation conducted on January 10, 2019, Nonparty 2 stated to the following purport:

본문내 포함된 표 ○ 2018. 12. 31.자 경찰조사 (생략) 문: 오늘 이 사건 병원에 칼은 왜 가지고 갔나요. 답: 대화가 안 되면 죽이려고 가져갔죠. 왜 가져갔겠어. 사람 다 똑같은 것 아니야? 문: 무슨 대화가 안 되면 죽이려고 했다는 말인가요. 답: (생략) 그래서 칼을 든 채 쫓아가 이후 CCTV대로야... (생략) 나를 건드렸던 △씨, □씨, ◇씨, ☆씨는 다음 생애에 내가 다 죽여버릴 거야. 문: 위 사람들은 누구인가요. 답: 잘 알 거 아냐. 나를 골로 보냈던 사람들. 이 사건 병원 회장 △씨... 다 포함된다고... (생략) ○ 2019. 1. 10.자 검찰조사 (생략) 문: 2018. 12. 31. 당일에 망인이 근무하는지를 미리 확인하였나요. 답: 아니요. 그냥 갔어요. 문: 망인이 비번일 수도 있을 텐데 확인해 보지 않았다는 건가요. 답: 네. (생략) 문: 언제부터 망인을 죽여야겠다는 생각을 한 건가요. 답: 네, 타깃으로 정해지면 죽여야 하는 거죠. 문: 그렇다면 망인을 언제부터 타깃으로 설정했던 건가요. 답: 그 의사가 벨을 누르는 순간, 갑자기 감정이 폭발하면서 죽여야겠다는 타깃으로 잡은 거죠. (생략) 문: 그렇다면 피의자가 망인을 만나서 피의자의 머릿속에 있는 폭탄을 제거해 줄 것을 요청하고, 만약 이를 들어주지 않을 경우를 대비하여 미리 준비한 칼로 망인을 죽이려고 했다는 것인가요. 답: 그렇죠. 저도 죽을 거니까요. (생략) 문: 망인만이 피의자의 머릿속에 있는 폭탄을 제거할 수 있는가요. 답: 그건 아니지만, 원래는 이 폭탄을 이용해서 저를 전쟁 주동자로 정부에서 만들려고 했어요. 문: 피의자의 머릿속에 폭탄은 누가 설치하였나요. 답: 제가 강제 입원된 이후 2일 동안 약물에 취해서 누가 설치했는지는 모르죠. 문: 그렇다면 망인이 피의자에게 폭탄을 설치한 것이 아닐 수도 있지 않나요. 답: 이 사건 병원 전체라니까요. 정부와 공모자들. 내가 누군지 모르니까 공모자들이라고 표현하는 거죠. 그때 당시가 소외 6 대통령 임기 시절이었으니까요. (생략) 문: 피의자는 망인에게 어떤 말을 하였나요. 답: ‘거래’라고 말했어요. 그리고 ‘내 머릿속에 설치해 놓은 폭탄을 다시 빼주면 오늘 온 것을 포함해서 여태까지 있었던 것을 묻지도 따지지도 않겠다’고 하였죠. 문: 그러니까 망인이 뭐라고 하던가요. 답: 저를 쳐다보면서 귀찮다는 듯이 벨을 눌렀어요. 문: 벨소리가 나던가요. 답: 네, ‘띠’ 하는 소리가 났어요. (생략) 문: 망인이 자리에 앉아서 벨을 눌렀나요. 답: 네. 문: 피의자는 망인의 13번 진료실 문을 잠그면서 미리 준비한 칼을 꺼내어 들었나요. 답: 제가 칼을 문을 잠그기 전에 꺼냈는지 잠근 후에 꺼냈는지 모르겠는데 아무튼 칼을 안주머니에서 꺼내 들었고, 그것을 본 망인이 겁에 질려서 도망친 거예요. (생략) 문: 피의자는 경찰 조사에서 ‘나를 건드렸던 △씨, □씨, ◇씨, ☆씨는 다음 생애에 내가 다 죽여버릴 거야’라고 진술하였는데, 범행대상이 추가로 더 있었나요. 답: △씨는 소외 7을 말하는 것이고, □씨는 피해자인 망인이고, ◇씨와 ☆씨는 누군지는 모르겠는데, 공모자들을 반드시 죽여버릴 거예요. 난 약속을 지키는 사람이니까요. (생략)

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7 (including various numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) Relevant regulations and legal principles

A) According to the deceased and wounded noble person’s law, rescue efforts refer to “the direct and affirmative act to rescue another person’s life, body, or property in imminent peril or danger at the risk of his/her own life or body” (Article 3(1)1), and “the deceased and wounded noble person’s death (including a case where the deceased and wounded were killed due to an act other than his/her duty) recognized as a deceased and wounded noble person according to the deceased and wounded noble person’s law” (Article 2), respectively, and “the deceased and wounded noble person’s death or injury was caused by an act other than his/her duty” (Article 3(1)1) applies to “the deceased and wounded noble person’s death or injury when the deceased and wounded noble person committed a criminal act, such as robbery, theft, assault, or kidnapping, or arresting the

B) In light of the legislative purport, regulatory content, etc. of the Act on the Persons Wounded or wounded for Public Good, “the time when a person was killed or wounded” in Article 3(1)1 of the Act on the Persons killed or wounded for Public Good includes not only the cases where a person was killed or wounded while preventing a criminal act, such as robbery, theft, assault, or kidnapping, or arresting such criminal, or having committed direct and active acts to arrest such criminal in order to protect another person’s life, etc., but also the cases where a person was killed or wounded in the course of engaging in an act closely connected with such act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Du5017, Sept. 9, 2005). Furthermore, directness and active nature of the act of rescue under the Act on the Persons killed or wounded for Public Good is not only the case where a person who was killed or wounded for public interest abroad took the risk of his/her life, etc. in order to rescue another person’s life, etc. in imminent danger with another person who was killed or wounded for his/her own danger.

2) Specific determination

A) In light of the provisions and legal principles seen earlier as seen earlier, the Deceased’s act of rescue, which is a direct and affirmative act to rescue another person’s life or property in imminent danger at risk of causing the death of Nonparty 2’s criminal act, constitutes a person who died while performing rescue activities other than the duty under Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Act on the Persons of Distinguished and Compensation for Deceased and wounded Persons, on the ground that he/she was killed in the process of committing the instant crime.

(1) 2018. 12. 31. 망인은 소외 2에 대한 진료를 시작한 직후에 소외 2의 발언을 듣고 소외 2의 상태가 심상치 않음을 깨닫고 13번 진료실에 있는 호출벨을 눌러 소외 4를 오도록 한 후 비상벨을 누르도록 요청하였고, 소외 4가 13번 진료실을 나간 직후 소외 2는 13번 진료실의 문을 잠그고 회칼을 꺼내는 등 망인에 대한 공격행위를 개시하였다. 비록 소외 2의 공격행위는 망인을 상대로 시작되었지만, ① 소외 2는 이 사건 병원의 관계자들이 자신의 머릿속에 폭탄을 넣어 두었다는 망상을 겪고 있었고, 2018. 12. 31. 망인의 진료 가능 여부를 확인하지 아니하고 무작정 이 사건 병원을 방문하였으며, 수사기관에서 망인, 소외 7(이 사건 병원의 회장으로 인식하였던 것으로 보인다), ◇씨, ☆씨 등을 모두 죽이겠다고 하면서, 망인에 대하여는 망인의 호출벨을 누른 행위가 망인에 대한 살인을 마음먹게 된 결정적인 계기가 되었다는 취지로 진술한 점, ② 소외 2는 이미 2015. 9. 23. 여동생에게 칼을 들이대는 등의 극단적인 공격성을 동반한 양극성 정동장애(조울증) 증상이 나타난 점, ③ 소외 2는 망인을 쫓아가는 과정에서 13번 진료실의 문을 닫으려 한 소외 3에게도 공격을 시도한 점 등을 고려하면, 망인뿐만 아니라 당시 이 사건 병원에 있었던 사람은 누구든지 소외 2에 의한 공격의 대상이 될 수 있었다고 봄이 타당하고, 정신건강의학과 전문의이자 소외 2의 주치의였던 망인도 이와 같은 사정을 알고 있었을 것으로 보인다.

(2) At the time of the instant case, the Deceased told Nonparty 3 as “Dogdog.,” while leaving Nonparty 13’s clinic and the above (No. 11 No. 11 of a photograph) to the point of “the deceased’s body,” the Deceased ceased and took care of Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 3’s evacuation from Nonparty 2’s attack, and Nonparty 3 took care of the deceased’s life and body or reported Nonparty 1’s movement to the left-hand room of the deceased at the point of “fincing,” the Deceased’s 11-No. 1 of a photograph No. 11 of the deceased’s body, and “the reported escape 1” means that Nonparty 2 could be subject to attack by Nonparty 2’s care, and thus, it appears that Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4 could not move the deceased’s body or body to the left-hand room of the deceased, so that it would be easy for Nonparty 2 to properly respond to attack the deceased’s act of attack, and that it would be possible for Nonparty 2 to take care and treatment.

(3) Furthermore, Nonparty 2 was an adult male of the 30-year old body body and had a blade that could cause fatal damage when used in the human body. However, Nonparty 2 did not possess any means to defend himself/herself, but did not have any means to make it easy for himself/herself to escape from the attack of Nonparty 2. ② If Nonparty 3 did not speak Nonparty 2 as “the deceased,” on the basis of the door of the 12-year body room, it was probable that Nonparty 1 could not have known Nonparty 2, who did not grasp the situation, could not have been able to escape from the attack of Nonparty 2, and at least, Nonparty 1 could have known Nonparty 2, who could not have known Nonparty 2 as “the deceased,” on the ground that Nonparty 2 could not have known Nonparty 1’s act of attack to Nonparty 2, who could have been at the time of attack. However, if Nonparty 2, who could not have known Nonparty 1’s act of attack, could not have been able to be seen as an attack by Nonparty 1’s act of attack.

B) Even if it is difficult to view the deceased’s act as a direct and affirmative rescue act, this constitutes a normal rescue act, and according to the above circumstances, it can be deemed that the deceased was not engaged in a direct and affirmative rescue act immediately after commencement of the rescue act. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that such act constitutes a case of death in the process of performing a direct and affirmative rescue act.

C) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

The claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Separate] Relevant statutes: omitted

Judges Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)