2013Gohap490 Injury, death or injury (a recognized crime, injury or assault)

1. A;

2. B

Preliminary (prosecution, public trial)

Law Firm C, Attorneys D, E, F, G, and H (for the defendant)

December 20, 2013

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for two years and by imprisonment for eight months.

Criminal facts

From May 2012, Defendant A was aware of the victim while taking part in the course of school life training to K High School located in Gangnam-si, where the victim J (Nam, 16 years old) was enrolled in the high school from May 2012.

Defendant A, while the victim was well aware of the Defendant’s horse during the class hours and was friendly by the Defendant, was in school with the victim since July 2012 after the completion of the teaching process.

In the above K High School, the defendant A left the victim voluntarily because the written question that the defendant and the victim agree with the above K High School may cause problems to the defendant's personal body if the school restriction is known through the care, the teaching, and the defendant's personal restriction.

From that point of view, Defendant A graduated from the university and returned to Incheon, which is advanced with I, and if the victim is mixed with the Defendant, Defendant A asked the victim to be able to have the victim pass the examination and public notice by making the victim go in Incheon and to pass the examination and public notice.

around February 2013, Defendant B and the above I, who took place from Defendant A and a high school as a kind of friendship, had the victim reside together with I for extracurricular lessons at the bar room located in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, and the victim can not return the victim to Gangnam unless he/she passes the examination announcement due to the fact of restriction on teaching with Defendant A. Thus, even if the victim did not attend the examination, he/she can have the victim attend the school.

A. On March 2013, Defendant A told Defendant B that the victim want to return to hills. Defendant A assaulted the victim, such as: (a) when the victim’s blick toilets were bleeped with I, and the victim’s blick toilets were cleeped from the victim’s blick toilets; and (b) intending to drink blicks with the victim.

B. At around May 2013, Defendant A heard from I that the victim did not hear the horses and did not properly study the books, and it found the body of the body, such as the body of the victim, such as the arms and the arms of the victim in Belgium, etc., which occurred before the victim met, Defendant A suffered an incurable injury on the treatment day, such as the body of the victim in Belgium and the body of the body of the victim.

C. On May 12, 2013, Defendant B heard the victim’s speech that the victim does not listen to, and found in the above studio, Defendant B suffered an injury in the treatment number of treatment days, such as the victim’s ambuck, bucks, etc., in which the victim’s am on the antenna, and the victim’s ambucks, etc. were placed at the victim’s am.

D. A around June 15, 2013, Defendant A found the above room for the foregoing reasons, and Defendant A suffered injury, such as the victim’s arms and amblock with golf bonds, and the number of days of treatment in which amblocks.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with others to assault the victim and inflict bodily injury on the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Investigation report (case of investigation into prosecution of digital evidence analysis);

1. On-site photographs, B, and A mobile phone restoration contents, recording files, such as B, M, etc. stored in A's mobile phone, listening to M's negative phone statement, preparation and reporting of each stenographic paper (Evidence List Nos. 87 and 100), and analysis of each digital evidence (sponing text messages);

1. Seizure records;

1. A written autopsy report, a written result of autopsy, and a written autopsy and appraisal report;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

○ Defendants: Articles 257(1), 30 (the point of injury, the choice of imprisonment), 260(1), and 30 (the point of violence and the choice of imprisonment) of the Criminal Act;

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

○ Defendants: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of each Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment and concurrent punishment as provided for in the crime of injury around June 15, 2013, with the largest penalty)

Judgment on the Defendants and their defense counsel's assertion

1. Summary of the assertion

Defendant A was in the stud toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403 on March 2013 only when the victim’s scams were taken several times, and there is no fact that Defendant A attempted to drink the scams to the victim.

2. Determination

Therefore, according to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., I stated that, around March 2013, I, M, and the Defendants were about to drink the victim from the original toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon L 403, and that the contents of the statement are not particularly exaggerated. ② M is about the victim's speech that he would want to return to Gangnam-gu, from the department store room in Japan, B and I were about to do so. It is about the victim's time to return to the above original room and continued to arrive at the victim's room, and it is not possible for A and I to understand the fact that "A" was about to drink the victim's food in the original toilet, and it is very difficult for A to understand the fact that it was about the victim's behavior as stated in A's mobile phone M as stated in the judgment.

Therefore, the defendants and their defense counsel's above assertion is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

【Scope of Penalty Surcharge】

○ Defendants: Imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten years and not more than six months;

【Scope of Recommendation】

○ Defendants: Each of six months to three years [in relation to each of the crimes of violence, each of the crimes of bodily injury (in the case of general injury, six months to two years of imprisonment, each of the crimes of aggravation (in the case of committing a crime by carrying a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles: a deadly weapon or other dangerous articles)] of the general injury, with respect to the crime of assault, the aggravated area (in the case of imprisonment between four months to one year, each of the aggravated factors: a cruel factor: a cruel factor) of the first category of the crime of assault (general violence), each of the crimes of assault, and the application of the standards for handling multiple crimes

【Determination of Sentence】

○ Defendant A: Imprisonment of two years, and imprisonment of eight months;

The Defendants only engaged in three times of injury and assault on one occasion. However, as the victim’s friendship, the victim died due to an independent act of injury of the victim, as the victim’s friend, as the victim’s friend, by using violence. As seen thereafter, it is difficult to recognize the Defendants’ legal liability for the death of the victim.

However, in light of the following: (a) the victim was living together with Incheon in order to cause the death of the victim by leaving hot water beyond the level of simple assault by the victim; (b) the first psychological dependence on the defendant A; (c) the defendant A’s psychological pressure on the part of the defendant; (d) the method for the defendant A to induce the victim to commit an act of violence; and (e) the behavior of assault committed by the defendant A by the victim, etc., the defendant A could have a significant and intangible impact on the entire case of this case where the result of the death was caused; and (e) the defendant A could not have caused the death of the victim if the defendant A did not have any such impact.

In addition, the Defendants did not take care of the victim who was fluent to the hospital, and instead, attempted to manipulate the victim's sexual assault crisis from the victim as if I she lited hot water, and during that process, the victim seems to have suffered a large mental and physical pain. Despite the fact that the victim's bereaved family members suffered a great shock and pain, the Defendants did not make appropriate efforts to live him/her. Rather, during the investigation process, the victims left the school, or did not lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly lickly live to the victim. Considering these circumstances, the Defendants cannot be punished beyond the sentencing level ordinarily lickly live in the injury and assault committed earlier.

However, in light of the fact that there is no criminal power against the Defendants, the Defendants appears to have divided and reflected their mistakes, and the degree of participation by the Defendant B is relatively minor, and all the factors of sentencing, such as the character, conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., are considered, and the punishment is determined as ordered.

The acquittal portion

1. Summary of the facts charged (the point of injury resulting from death);

As stated in the facts of the crime, the Defendants and [the victims of the victim J (mam, 16 years of age) did not attend the official book, but did not feel the victim in the official book even through harsh physical punishment.

Although Defendant A could not return the victim to Gangnam, on March 2013, on the ground that the victim told B that he would return to Gangnam, Defendant A could not speak that he would return to Gangnam. However, at the stud toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, the body of the victim could be scam together with I and even at the stud toilet in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City L 403, Defendant A could not scam the victim again.

I, from May 2013 to June 2013, 2013, on the ground that the victim did not study in the above studio, caused the victim's body in light of the victim's head, the shoulder part, etc. five times a week with golf loans, etc., and the victim A and B were punished twice a week with the victim's body.

In particular, around May 2013, Defendant A heard from I that the victim did not hear the horses and did not properly study the books, and found the body of the body, such as the body of the victim, such as the arms and parts of the victim, Belgium, etc., and suffered injury such as the body of the victim before the victim met with I et al., and around June 15, 2013, Defendant A suffered injury, such as the body of the victim, the body of the body of the body, such as the body and parts of the body, such as the arms and parts of the victim, etc., with golf loans around 15, 2013.

Defendant B listened to the statement that the victim does not listen to the statement from I on May 5, 2013 and December 12, 2013, and found in the above studio, Defendant B suffered injury, such as the victim’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her bbbbbbbb

As such, from May 2013 to June 2013, the Defendants received contact with 1,200 p.m. 1, and found in the above studio as a Belgium, antenna, golf, etc., and suffered injury to the victim, i.e., a knife, a knife, a knife, and a knife knife.

In addition, Defendant A made a virtual figure of 2009 and introduced it to the internal body, and then sent I and I received text messages as 'I' and I think 'A' as 'I' and 'I think 'I' as 'I' and 'I think 'I' as 'I' and 'I think 'I' as 'I'. In particular, around 13:42 on May 5, 2013, Defendant A sent text messages to I who received the above message 'I' and caused the victim to be punished.'

In addition, the Defendants, around June 24, 2013, did not properly study the victim's book and did not listen to the Defendants' horses, so it was false that Yoo was hospitalized in the hospital that 'Woo' 'Woo' 'Woo' 'Woo' 'Woo' 'Wood 'Woo' 'Woo' 'Woo' .

Between June 25, 2013 and June 15:35, 2013, at the above studio, the Defendants believed the above studio of the Defendants and become extremely extremely and psychologically unstable, and the victim did not properly attend the studio, and the victim was licking a hot water that the victim was gas, or the victim was hacking from smelling, and on June 26, 2013, at the same time, 3 degrees of image, etc. were inflicted on the body of the victim when the victim was skid by the same method and when the victim’s face was skid.

Accordingly, the Defendants, in collaboration with I, injured the victim's body, such as image, stove, and stoves, and thereby caused the victim's death in the above studio around June 29, 2013, 04:39.

2. Summary of the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion

Around June 25, 2013, around 26, 2013 and around 26, I suffered pictures from the victim with heavy water, which led to the death of the victim with a spawnosis on June 29, 2013. There was no fact that I participated in the act of bringing pictures to the victim by the victim, and the Defendants could not expect that I breshes hot water to the victim.

The Defendants, at the request of I, committed an assault in the form of body punishment against the victim, but did not periodically prevent the victim as stated in the facts charged, and there is no causal link between the victims' assault and the death of the victim.

3. Relevant principles.

The co-principal of the crime of death resulting from bodily harm, which is an aggravated crime, is established when he/she wishes to jointly commit violence or other acts of bodily harm, and is not required to jointly intend to commit such acts. In cases where the death of a victim is caused by a serious injury committed by a group of persons among the crimes committed with the intent of bodily harm, the remaining persons may not be exempted from the liability for the death resulting from bodily harm unless it is possible to anticipate the result of death (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do745, May 12, 200).

In addition, the burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the prosecutor, and the conviction shall be based on the evidence with probative value that leads the judge to feel true beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant, the interest of the defendant should be determined (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do2823, Aug. 21, 2001; 2008Do4467, Jul. 24, 2008).

4. Determination

(a) A private person of a victim;

According to the examination report of autopsy, appraiser P of the National Scientific Investigation Institute, who conducted autopsy against the victim, seems to have been affected by infections in the victim’s telegraph, and the face and head’s left side, broad organizational loss, such as the face and head’s upper part, and the part of each paper, etc., the number of organizational loss, sprinking, sprinking, sprinking, and sprinking in the telegraph, and the fact that there seems to have been a large number of organizational loss, sprinking, sprinking, sprinking, and sprinking in the telegraph, such as the fact that there appears to be combined with the image, such as the fact that there appears to be a sprinking effect on the parts, including the damage of the video surface, and that there appears to be an opinion that the sprinking effect on the parts, including the damage of the spactical examination, together with the opinion that the sprinking symptoms and the opinion that the spacting time has passed.

B. Whether the Defendants participated in the Defendants’ act using the victim’s image

In this regard, according to the witness I's statement, each investigation report (record, video and tape recording file attachment), recording, appending the contents of A's cell phone restoration, and recording (Evidence No. 86) each, 1. on June 15, 2013, dumped the Defendant B's dump, and dumped the Defendant's dump, so 'I dump', 'I dump', 'I dump', 'I dump'. 2) The Defendant B dumped the Defendant's dump, 'I dump', 'I dump, I dump, I dump the Defendant', 'I dump, I dump', and 2:07, and 12:12.

However, in light of the following circumstances duly admitted by the court: ① the Defendants did not appear at the scene at the time when the Defendants got hot water from the victim; ② the Defendants knew of the fact that they got hot water from the victim; ② the Defendants did not instruct the victim to incur hot water from the court; ② the Defendants did not have any relation with the Defendants, as they were themselves and they did not have any relation with the Defendants; ② the Defendants did not have any relation to the victim’s face before the instant case, the Defendants did not want to have the victim’s new wall-to-date statement on June 26, 2013; ② the Defendants did not want to have the victim’s oral examination at the time when the Defendants did not appear in the victim’s new wall-to-date statement to the effect that the Defendants did not want to have the victim’s 1 to attend the examination; ② the Defendants did not want to have the victim’s oral statement to the extent that they did not want to have the victim’s 1 to 200.

C. Whether the causal link between the assault and bodily injury inflicted on the victim and the death of the victim is recognized

As found in the facts of the crime above, evidence that corresponds to the fact that the defendants suffered the death of the victim by causing injury as shown in the above facts of the crime, ① there may have been the possibility of causing the death of the victim due to the damage of the two parts and the damage of the diversified long-term. However, it is difficult to exclude the possibility of crypitis by image. ② The result of the examination indicated as follows: ② the private person of the victim is judged by the combination of images and pictures (i.e., spathic, spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathy, spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic spathic s.

그러나, ① 피고인들이 피해자에게 마지막으로 가한 상해는 피해자가 사망한 날로부터 2주일 전인 2013. 6. 15.의 것으로서, 판시 범죄사실에서 인정된 것과 같은 상해를 입은 경우 통상적으로 얼마간 안정을 취하면서 약물치료를 받게 되면 충분히 회복될 수 있어 피해자가 입은 위와 같은 상해만으로 사망에까지 이를 가능성은 극히 낮고, 2013. 6. 25.경 피해자가 화상을 입기 전까지의 상태를 놓고 보더라도 피해자가 더 이상 치료 및 회복이 불가능하여 조만간 사망에 이를 정도는 아니었던 것으로 보이는 점, ② 위 검시 결과서는 피해자의 사체 외관만을 살펴본 후 작성한 추측성 기재에 불과하고, 검시 결과서에도 화상으로 인한 전신 감염(패혈증)의 가능성도 배제하기 어렵다고 기재되어 있는 점, ③ 위 P은 2013.7.24. 검사와 전화통화를 하면서 '패혈증에 일반적으로 화상이 좀 더 크게 기여를 했다고 봐야 될 것 같다. 패혈증에 의한 소견이 보이는 곳으로 뇌쪽의 화농성 뇌막염과 폐에 대한 조직검사에서 나타난 폐혈색전증 및 급성 위궤양이 있는데, 이런 것들이 아주 심각하게 많이 진행된 정도는 아니고 이제 막 시작하는 정도의 느낌으로서, 그 이전에 어떤 손상이 있었고 그것 때문에 패혈증이 있었던 상황이라기보다는 이번 화상에 의해 감염이 되고 감염이 진행되는 과정 속에 패혈증까지 되고 그래서 사망을 한 것으로 보는 게 맞지 않을까 싶다.'는 의견을 제시한 점, ④ 또한 위 P은 이 법정에 증인으로 출석하여, '화상을 입기 전에 피해자 몸에 생긴 상처가 더욱 빠른 속도로 화상이 악화되는데 기여하거나, 손상에 의한 건강상태의 악화가 조금 더 화상에 의한 사망에 기여하는 등으로 피해자가 패혈증으로 진행하는 과정에 영향을 준 것은 사실이라고 진술하면서도, 피해자가 사망한 직접적인 원인은 화상으로, 피해자의 패혈증은 화상으로부터 발생된 패혈증이라고 할 수 있고 피해자의 몸에 상처가 좀 있었다고 하더라도 화상이 없었다면 사망하지는 않았을 것이라고 생각되며, 피해자는 몸 전체 면적 80%에 화상을 입었고, 2~3도 혹은 부위에 따라서 4도로 진행된 화상이 있었기 때문에 몸에 아무런 상처가 없었다고 가정하더라고 이 정도 화상만으로 피해자가 사망에 이를 수 있었을 것이라고 진술한 점, ⑤ 부검감정서에 의하면, 피해자의 얼굴과 머리의 왼쪽면에 관자부위를 중심으로 22.0×15.0㎝의 화농성 염증을 동반한 피부조직의 소실(피해자가 입은 상처 중 가장 큰 상처에 해당한다)이, 오른볼 부위, 오른눈 윗부분에서 4.0×1.5㎝의 피하출혈이, 콧등 윗부분에서 1.0m의 좌열창과 작은 크기의 표피박탈이, 아랫입술에서 2.0×1.5cm의 점막 찢김이, 마루부위 뒷부분에서 3.5×0.5㎝의 좌열창을 비롯한 수개의 좌열창 및 표피박탈이 발견되었는데, I는 법정 및 수사기관에서, 피해자의 머리 부분만큼은 피고인들이 때린 사실이 없고 1 자신이 혼자 때린 것이 맞다고 진술한 점 등의 제반 사정을 종합해 보면, 위 검시 결과서, 부검감정서, P 법의관 전화진술 청취의 각 전부 또는 일부 기재만으로는 앞서 범죄사실에서 인정한 피고인들이 피해자에게 가한 폭행 및 상해와 피해자의 사망 사이에 상당인과관계가 있다는 점에 관하여 합리적 의심의 여지없이 증명되었다고 볼 수 없고 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없으며, 설령 피고인들의 가해행위와 피해자의 사망 사이에 상당인과관계가 인정된다 하더라도, 앞서 본 사정 등에 비추어 검사가 제출한 증거들만으로는 피고인들이 가해행위 당시에 피해자가 패혈증 등으로 사망에 이를 것이라고 예견할 수 있었다고 보기 어렵고, 달리 이를 인정할 만한 증거가 없다.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, since the above facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of a crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, the above facts charged contains the above facts of injury or assault as stated in the judgment, and the defendants have the opportunity to exercise sufficient right of defense during the process of the examination of evidence although they were most or some of the arguments, and even if they were found guilty without any changes in the indictment, they are found guilty without due to the lack of substantial disadvantage in the exercise of the right of defense, and as seen above,

The presiding judge, the Kim Jong-dong

Judges Kim Gin-hee

Judges Park Jong-young