Whether the possibility of the result of death exists in cases where a victim who was reard in order to avoid an article of the defendant was suffering from an obstacle while he/she was in a dispute with the same person in a factory (negative)

As a result of the crime of assault and death, in addition to the causal relationship between the result of assault and death, there should be negligence, i.e., predictability of the result of death, and the existence of such predictability should be strictly considered by taking into account specific circumstances, such as the degree of assault and response status of the victim, etc. Therefore, the defendant does not go beyond considerable force to the victim, but rather, in the process of a dispute between the fees at a factory, the victim himself/herself needs to keep his/her own walk about to avoid the danger and injury. If the degree of the defendant was exceeded due to the wire ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice, which the defendant was in the front time, even if the above obstacles could have been predicted until the after ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ice ices were over the degree, it would normally go beyond that degree, and thus, it would normally be difficult for the general public to expect and thus, it cannot be held liable for the death of the defendant.

Article 262 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Young-young

Busan High Court Decision 89No1207 delivered on June 13, 1990

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel are also examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant and the injured party met the above 5th floor of cement industrial complex, which had been working in the 5th century, and the victim was inside and outside of the warehouse because they were inside and outside of the above 5th floor of cement, and the victim was found to have been frightened by using the 9th floor of the above 5th anniversary of the death, and the victim was frightening so that they could not have been found to have been frightened, and that the victim was frightened by using the 9th floor of the above 5th anniversary of the death, and that the victim was frightened by using the 9th floor of the above 5th floor of the cement, and that the victim was not frightened, and that the victim was frightd by using the 9th floor of the above 9th floor of the cement and the 9th floor of the defendant's frightter and the victim was found to have been frighted by the fright.

2. The so-called crime of death by assault, etc. is a so-called as an aggravated crime, and not a causal relationship exists between the consequence of assault and death, that is, there should be negligence, i.e., predictability of the result of death, and the existence of such predictability should be strictly determined by taking into account specific circumstances, such as the degree of assault and the response status of the victim, and by expanding and interpreting the scope of predictability, it should be avoided to expand criminal punishment beyond the limit of liability for negligence by excluding the purport of harmonious the principle of liability with the result aggravated crime under Article 15(2) of the Criminal Act.

In this case, in a case where the act of the defendant's act of putting the goods in hand and placing the article in front of the victim's presence is an exercise of tangible force against the victim, and thus the victim suffers bodily injury, such as a ductal of the cement floor, and the victim died by suffering bodily injury, it can be deemed that there exists causation between the above assault and the death.

However, if the defendant intends to ask the defendant to commit a crime of assault against the result of the death, it should be recognized that the defendant could have predicted the result of the above death. If the defendant does not go beyond considerable force to the victim, but is in a dynamic dispute between the dynamics, if the victim himself/herself is left to the back and is faced with an obstacle, he/she could have been predicted until he/she would be faced with the obstacle if the obstacle such as the time when the judgment was made on the floor where the victim was located at the time. However, even if it could have been predicted that the head might be caused by the obstacle if the obstacle, such as the time when the judgment was made on the back on the floor where the head was left, and the death of the head was caused by two parts on the floor, it cannot be said that it would normally be difficult for the general public to expect.

The court below explained on the basis of the predictability that the victim was under the influence of alcohol so far as her center was lost due to the age of 53, but the victim was under the age of 53 at the time of the accident. However, it is difficult to deem that the victim was old since she was under the age of 53, and there is no evidence to find that the victim was under the influence of alcohol to the extent that she was under the influence of alcohol even if considering the record, there is no ground for the part of the judgment below.

3. Ultimately, the judgment of the court below is reversed on the ground that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the evidence judgment as to the possibility of expectation, which is the element of a contingent double crime, and it is therefore decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-seok (Presiding Justice)