logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.06.09 2017노121
폭행치사
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below) of the death resulting from assault (not guilty part of the reasoning of the judgment below), the Defendant strongly exercised force against the victim E (the victim E (the victim 61) by using bather bather and bating bat, etc., the Defendant fatd the hand with fating the bat.

The direct cause of death is that the damage to the two parts, such as the pelle and cerebral blood suffered by the victim, is the direct cause of death, and the disease of the victim is not the cause of death.

The defendant could have sufficiently predicted that his exercise of his tangible power could cause the victim to go beyond the floor and be difficult to cover it.

On the contrary, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the causal relation and predictability, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentencing of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, the crime of death by assault is a so-called aggravated crime that is likely to cause negligence, i.e., the possibility of predicting the result of death, i.e., the existence of such predictability, by examining specific circumstances, such as the degree of assault and response status of the victim, etc. As a result of the crime of assault and death, and by interpreting the scope of predictability inevitably, it is necessary to avoid the expansion of criminal punishment by exceeding the limit of liability for negligence by pointing out the purport that Article 15(2) of the Criminal Act harmonizes the principle of liability with the resulting aggravated crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do1596, Sept. 25, 199; 2009Do3002, Jun. 23, 2009).

arrow