(a) Requirements for crimes committed by omission;

(b) The case holding that an act of homicide (10 years old) inducedd to a dangerous reservoir due to the intention of homicide is deemed to be an act of murder by omission without providing rescue to a person with poor water;

A. In a case where a person who is legally obligated to act to prevent infringement of legal interests prohibited by the Criminal Act, fails to perform his/her duty by permitting and neglecting the occurrence of the result, despite the fact that it could have easily prevented the occurrence of the result by performing his/her duty, if the omission is deemed equivalent to that of infringement of legal interests by the commission, and thus, can be deemed as an act of commission of the crime, the act of commission can be punished as a crime of omission in the same way as the act of commission by the commission.

B. The defendant's act of carrying the knicker victim (10 years old) into a reservoir with the mind of killing the knicker victim (10 years old), and walking together with a reservoir with a view to easily extinguishing the knicker, and, if the victim did not rescue the knicker, making the knicker, the knicker's own knicker and fell out of water, and even if the knicker did not rescue the knicker, the knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's knicker's kn's knicker's kn's own kn's k's k's own act.

(b)Article 18 of the Criminal Code;

(b) Supreme Court Decision 82Do2024 delivered on November 23, 1982 (Gong1983, 238)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Jong-chul et al.

Busan High Court Decision 91No746 delivered on October 23, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

1. The defendant's grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 of the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the attorney Kim Dong-ho (the grounds of appeal on the supplementary grounds of appeal stated in the supplemental appellate brief that the attorney Kim Dong-ho submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds of appeal are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal. The same applies thereafter).

If the evidence admitted by the first instance court as cited by the court below is examined by comparing the records and records, the fact that the defendant intentionally killed the victims can be sufficiently recognized. The judgment below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the criminal intent of murder, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the confession of murder, the confession of the defendant, which is a evidence disadvantageous to the defendant without any reinforcement evidence, shall not be deemed to be erroneous.

2. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 1-B by the defense counsel Kim Dong-dong

According to Article 18 of the Criminal Act, if a person, who has a duty to prevent the occurrence of danger, or who has caused the occurrence of danger, does not prevent the occurrence of danger, he/she shall be punished by the result thereof. If a person, who has a legal duty to act in order to prevent the occurrence of the occurrence of danger, which is prohibited by the Criminal Act, performs his/her duty, fails to perform his/her duty by allowing and neglecting the occurrence of the result, despite the fact that it was easily possible to prevent the occurrence of the occurrence of the result by performing the duty, the omission is equivalent to that of the infringement of legally protected interests by the act, and thus, can be deemed as an act of commission of the crime, the act of commission can be punished as a crime of omission in the same way as the act

As the facts of the case affirmed by the court of first instance as determined by the court below, in order to kill the victims 1 (10 years of age) and 2 (8) years of age, the defendant sleeped a reservoir with water coloring the victims in advance, and entices them to an easily slurged, and walk together with the victim slurged, such as the victim 1, slurged from a softened price, and the depth of the victims 2 meters or more of the reservoir, and the victim 2 victims who slurged before slurged to the reservoir without rescue, so if the defendant slurged the victims by leaving them at the reservoir, so it is reasonable that the victims slurging the victim's slurgical act and the defendant did not have the duty to do so at the above stage of the crime of murder, and even if the defendant did not have the duty to do so, the defendant did not have the duty to do so at the above stage of the crime of death.

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below which appears to apply the murder to the defendant 1 is just, and it cannot be deemed that there was an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of murder, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore there is no reason

3. Judgment on the ground of appeal No. 2 by a public defender Kim-chul and the ground of appeal No. 3 by a defense counsel Kim Dong-dong

Examining the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, intelligence and environment; (b) relationship with victims; and (c) motive, means and consequence of each of the instant crimes; and (d) circumstances surrounding the sentencing indicated in the records, such as the circumstances after the commission of the crime; (b) even considering the circumstances asserted by defense counsel, the determination of the lower court’s sentence that sentenced the Defendant to imprisonment for life is appropriate; and (c) the amount of the sentence cannot be deemed to be extremely unfair;

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)