2013 Highest 1408A. Occupational commissioned abortion

(b) abortion;

1. A.O.O.

Residence

Reference domicile

2. (b) Doumping;

Residence

Reference domicile

Kim In-bok (prosecution), Kim In-bok (Public Trial)

January 17, 2014

Defendant ○○○ shall be punished by imprisonment for four months and suspension of qualifications for one year.

However, with respect to the defendant ○○, the execution of the above imprisonment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

section 3.

The sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Criminal facts

1. At around 17:00 on January 11, 2013, the Defendant ○○○, a medical doctor operating the said father’s child at the 000 Cheongju-si, in an operation to discharge the 12-day pregnant fetus out of the body.

2. The date and time set forth in paragraph (1), and at the place set forth in paragraph (1), Defendant ○○○ performed a surgery to discharge a pregnant fetus of 12 weeks out of the body of the mother, by inserting drugs in which the Defendant was entrusted with a abortion surgery, and the fetus was discharged out of the body of the mother’s body by taking advantage of inhalers.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Results of each reply, set (number 2), copies of receipts, and pre-delivery inspection;

Application of Statutes

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

A. Defendant ○○○: Article 270(1) and (4) of the Criminal Act

B. Defendant Dou Dou-gu: Article 269(1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines

1. The type to be suspended;

Defendant 1: fine of 1,000,000

1. Detention in a workhouse;

△△△△△: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant ○○: Article 62(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of sentence;

Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act

Grounds for sentencing

There are various views and opinions on whether to punish abortion and the scope and degree of punishment. However, since our legislators have determined that abortion and occupational commissioned abortion are subject to criminal punishment unless they fall under the exception of Article 14 of the Mother and Child Health Act by lawful procedures, the relevant statutory provisions have normative power according to their language and text and legislative intent unless they are opened or the Constitutional Court unconstitutionality thereof is decided, and the pertinent statutory provisions do not have been amended from the time of the abortion to the date of the pronouncement of the judgment in this case, and the Constitutional Court has decided that the pertinent statutory provisions do not violate the Constitution (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 2010Hun-Ba402, Aug. 23, 2012). Accordingly, the universal discussion at the legislative level is separate from the relevant statutory provisions, and there is no obligation to adopt so-called methods and methods as to the determination of the possibility of abortion between the members of society and society. Meanwhile, the relevant statutory provisions cannot be considered as adopting the methods and methods of punishment.

On the same premise, in the case of Defendant ○○○○, even though it appears clearly known that it was unlawful in our society as mentioned earlier, Defendant ○○ appears to have committed the instant crime for profit even though it was perceived or could have been aware of such fact. Defendant ○○○○ cannot be deemed to have committed the instant crime for profit. Defendant ○○○○, a doctor, demanded that Defendant ○○○○ would not perform the abortion prohibited under the Act, or need that it would not be an average citizen’s right to self-determination under the Constitution of ○○○○ in this case, and for this reason, it cannot be seen that Defendant ○○○○ would have caused the instant abortion operation. In addition, in light of these circumstances, Defendant ○○○’s initial investigation agency’s statement at the time of ○○○○○’s commission of the instant abortion, etc., and actively made a false statement that was favorable to Defendant ○○○○’s commission of the instant abortion, etc., and that it could not be considered that it was disadvantageous to Defendant ○○○’s commission of the instant punishment.

피고인 ●●●의 경우 자기낙태 행위에 대한 처벌규정의 보호법익과 상충되는 또 다 른 법익인 헌법상 자기결정권의 주체로서, 이 사건 낙태 당시 피고인 ●●● 및 ◎◎ ◎의 각 연령 및 처한 상황, 이 사건 낙태 당시 태아의 성장 정도 등에 비추어 볼 때 피고인 ●●●가 이 사건 낙태에 이르게 된 경위에 참작할 만한 사정이 있다고 인정된 다. 이러한 사정에 더하여 이 사건 기록에 나타난 제반사정을 참작하여 피고인 ●●● 에 대하여 주문과 같이형을 정한다.

Dried police officer;