The case holding that the death of an active duty serviceman who committed suicide while taking a rest in a house during military service constitutes "self-injury" under Article 4 (5) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State.

The case holding that, with respect to the death in active duty servicemen who were on duty after a leave of absence in military service and were on duty, it cannot be denied that the mental illness caused by a superior's harsh act, etc. was a direct motive and important cause for the resolution of suicide; however, a superior's harsh act committed against the deceased was a verbal violence that did not reach physical violence, but it cannot be said that the content and degree were extreme, such as threatening to the safety of life and body, and there was one cause for the deceased's failure to properly adapt to the incidental life; the deceased's internal nature and tendency that are not easily different to others; the deceased's attempt to commit suicide with a small gun with a blank 160 days ago; the deceased's attempt to receive a clear diagnosis about his previous mental disorder or treatment at a military hospital or private hospital due to mental illness; and the deceased's refusal to receive a clear diagnosis about the state of suicide, etc., and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a case of self-injury in accordance with Article 5(4) and (5) of the Act.

Article 4 (5) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

Plaintiff 1 and one other (Attorney Hun-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

The Head of the Seoul Southern Veterans Branch Office

Seoul Down District Court Decision 2003Guhap27716 Delivered on November 17, 2004

August 24, 2005

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The decision that the defendant rendered against the plaintiffs on June 30, 2003 as bereaved family members of the person who rendered distinguished services to the State shall be revoked.

2. Purport of appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On February 4, 2002, Nonparty 1, the plaintiffs, entered the Army and completed approximately 12 weeks training, was placed on May 2, 200 of the same year (name omitted). On June 6, 19 of the same year, Nonparty 1 died immediately due to the 19th floor of the 19th floor through his own window around 07:50 following the following day when Nonparty 1 was retired from rest in the 2nd apartment of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Newdong-dong (Dong-dong omitted).

B. On August 10, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an application for registration of bereaved family members of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the defendant on the ground that the deceased non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased") falls under the category of persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State under Article 4 (1) 5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), but the defendant on June 30, 2003, on the ground that the deceased's death falls under the category of "self-injury" under Article 4 (5) 4 of the Act and does not fall under the category of "self-injury", the defendant made a decision on the eligibility of persons who

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul Nos. 1, 2, and 3

2. Whether the instant disposition is lawful

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The deceased was physically and mentally healthy before entering the military, and the military frequently experienced verbal violence, such as abusive and verbal abuse, from appointed soldiers, and caused suicide. Ultimately, the deceased’s death was caused by a proximate causal relation with military service. Although the deceased’s death had a reasonable causal relation with military service, this is beyond the normal and free will of the deceased, and thus, cannot be deemed self-injury. Thus, the Defendant’s disposition rejecting the application for registration of bereaved family members of the deceased was unlawful.

B. Relevant statutes

It is as shown in the attached Form.

C. Facts of recognition

(1) On April 21, 1981, the Deceased was assessed on April 21, 1981 as the owner of a net and multilateral sexual product, whose behavior is prudent and well-being another person’s position.

(2) After having joined the Army on February 4, 2002, the Deceased was transferred to the Headquarters on May 2, 2002, and served as a driver on May 2, 200, and immediately following the transfer, the Deceased was determined as a soldier with no problem as a result of an interview with each transfer conducted by the administrative diffusion officer, the distribution ledger, and the commander of the fleet. However, there was a voice in the case where the Deceased did not make the horses individually after the transfer and did not make the horses, and where the Deceased did not make the remarks, he did not seem to have been able to easily accept the appointment soldiers, and did not have any other internal and passive behavior as well as the motive of the transfer.

(3) After the transfer, Nonparty 2, who was an appointed soldier, told Nonparty 3 of the motive of the Deceased and the Deceased, who did not respond to the two persons, and the above Nonparty 2 said that “YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY Y YY YY YY YY YY YY YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y YY Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y

(4) 선임병인 소외 2, 소외 5가 수시로 망인을 포함한 포대원들에게 심한 욕설을 하곤 했으며, 선임병 중 일인은 망인의 모자를 벗겨 착용하면서 머리가 무지하게 크다며 망인을 1∼2차례 놀려댔다.

(5) On the part of the deceased’s internal affairs team, the deceased took the so-called “settlement of accounts,” which conducts corrective education, etc. for up to 30 minutes, while putting the appointed soldiers on the end line without immediately bed the aftermathing the aftermath of the front line, and making them sit on the aftermath of the front line, and putting them off on the part pointed out by the commander during the next day or on the erroneous part that was pointed out by the commander.”

(6) On May 18, 2002, at around 07:15, the Deceased entered the boundary service with Nonparty 6, who was on the sick and wounded, into a gun with a shot gun with a strong blank bomb, and discussed and used it. Accordingly, the Deceased suffered a minor image with the heat in the mouth (1cm x 1cm in length x 1cm in length, 0.5cm through 1cm in depth) and a minor image.

(7) A soldier who treated the Deceased immediately after the relevant firearms accident asked the Deceased of why he/she was unable to act, and the Deceased responded to the purport that he/she would have been aware of his/her behavior. The military doctor did not take measures to have the Deceased receive mental treatment, as he/she did not appear to have engaged in any other mental disorder.

(8) Nonparty 7, a major commander, reported the pertinent firearms accident to the superior unit, was feared to receive a quality check as a commander, and was not reported to the upper unit of the firearms accident in mind that he would obtain good scores without any accident in the training for the measurement of the force of the military unit in the Madern War, and that he did not report the said firearms accident to the upper unit.

(9) The deceased responded to the questions of the members of the unit that caused the above firearms accidents: “I am silently or I see why you want to know?” “I am unable to be a supplementary adaptation, and I am am save in the instant impulse and do so in the instant impulse,” and “I am save, I see that I am save, I do not know about why I do not refuse to do so,” and “I am the same as I am. I am. I see that I am. I do not want to do so.”

(10) The non-party 8, who is the administrative diffusion officer, visited the plaintiffs immediately after the relevant firearms accident, and let the deceased and the plaintiffs freely communicate about 40 minutes.

(11) During the period from June 3 of the same year to June 9 of the same year, Nonparty 7, who is a major commander, thought that the deceased would have been subject to criminal punishment due to his self-harm, taken measures to put the deceased in his/her own body on the part of his/her negligence in his/her boundary duty. At the time of his/her appearance in his/her own body, Nonparty 8 was arranged by his/her superior, and the plaintiffs and the deceased were allowed to hold a meeting outside his/her unit, and the deceased’s position was clearly expressed at that time.

(12) After the relevant firearms accident, some of the unit members of the deceased, who were affiliated with the deceased, thought that they caused a firearms accident as above, arbly singly and arbly, that they had been able to adapt themselves to the military life, and that some of them intentionally caused the firearms accident in order to make the deceased smooth living.

(13) After the relevant firearms accident, Nonparty 9, the captain of the Korean War, ordered the deceased to be excluded from all duties, ordered the deceased to take a training course, and asked the deceased 10 who was in charge of the education community to manage the deceased well. Nonparty 10 was not a woman of the deceased who caused the relevant firearms accident, and even if the deceased asked, it is difficult for the deceased to answer the question, and the other soldiers did not look at the deceased in a direct or extreme manner after the relevant firearms accident.

(14) On June 13 of the same year, at the internal affairs team, Nonparty 11’s wallets and Nonparty 12’s wallets were stolen in a lump sum. Some auxiliarys were suspected of the Deceased as a thief, on the ground that the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000,000, located within the deceased’s wallets, is almost similar to the amount of the stolen money. One time was exchanged between Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 13 to the effect that Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 13 doubtful the Deceased at night, but the horses were “I do not know that I do not know it.” (after the deceased’s death, it became known that the Deceased who stolen money was Nonparty 14 disease).

(15) From June 15 of the same year, the Deceased continued to repeat the words “I do not have to go (I not)” and “I do not have to go (I not do not do)”. Since then, the Deceased did not do so and did not have been able to do so by lying lying-in rice, and lying-in rice, etc. again, in a situation where I cannot do so without being locked during the period of bed, and she did not do so. On June 17 of the same year, at around 03:15 of the same year, the Deceased tried to wear her uniform to go on the duty while I wanting to go off, and try to come up with Cick and me to come up for more than one hour.

(16) On June 18 of the same year, the deceased reported a passenger car that passed through the unit, and, on the other hand, Nonparty 4, an appointed soldier, using a public telephone, made the deceased be able to ask the deceased to communicate with the plaintiff 2 by getting the deceased at his house. At around 23:00 on the same day, Nonparty 5, who was locked by the deceased, can not be seen as "I will not see this case, and I will not see it?"

(17) On June 19, 19, at around 07:30 on the following day, the deceased was able to see whether the plaintiff 2 made a phone call to the administrative diffusion officer and made a son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son

(18) The Deceased arrived at the house and talked with Nonparty 15, who is the birth of the decedent, and “picker with the military unit, even though she goes to the military unit,” etc. The Deceased showed a very unstable figure, such as a locked distance, coming to the ward due to the Amar himself.

(19) On June 20, 207:50 of the same year, the Deceased, through his own window, went to the apartment flower on the 19th floor below the apartment.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 5-24, 25-39, the purport of the whole pleadings

D. Medical judgment on the deceased’s mental condition

In light of the circumstances and actions from the time when the deceased attempted suicide to the time when the deceased actually succeeded to suicide, the deceased seems to have gradually aggravated as a serious depression accompanied by a mental divided disease or mental symptoms. From June 15, 2002 to the time when the deceased had already been able to commit suicide, it can be deemed that the depression occurred first and gradually aggravated. However, it cannot be said that the deceased’s disease constitutes a serious depression accompanied by a mental divided disease or mental disorder.

[Based on the basis of recognition] The evidence No. 5-1 and the fact-finding with respect to the Korean Medical Association of the first instance court, the purport of the entire pleadings

(e) Markets:

(1) Where a soldier died in the course of performing his/her duties, this constitutes a soldier’s death on duty as stipulated in the proviso of Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act. In such a case, his/her bereaved family members shall be entitled to receive a pension as stipulated in the Act. However, his/her death is not entitled to receive a pension as stipulated in Article 4(5)4 of the Act. Meanwhile, the Act and the Enforcement Decree of the Act provide that persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State and their bereaved family members who have contributed or sacrificed for the State shall be able to stabilize their lives and improve their welfare by providing honorable treatment for their lives and contribute to the promotion of the patriotism of the people, and shall be able to contribute to the promotion of the patriotism of the people. It shall be determined that the person who has rendered distinguished services to the State and his/her bereaved family members have strictly listed the persons who have rendered distinguished services to the State in accordance with the above purpose, basic ideology and compensation system, and that the person’s act of suicide was 20 years or more of mental injury.

(2) According to the above facts, the deceased’s physical self-harm led to frequent quality, language violence, and bullying of his superior, etc., even though he was first placed in the military, it cannot be denied that the above superior’s mental disease caused by harsh treatment, etc. was the direct motive and important cause for the deceased to resolve suicide. Meanwhile, the severe treatment of his superior who was caused to the deceased was the main cause of violence up to physical violence. However, it cannot be said that the contents and degree of suicide could not be easily different from the inner nature of the deceased, and as such, it cannot be said that it was a extreme violence such as threatening to the deceased’s life and body safety. In view of the fact that the deceased’s physical self-harm was committed during his suicide and the tendency that the deceased could not adapt to his military life, it was one of the causes for his mental illness at the time of his own placement, and that the deceased’s mental disease was not caused by the death, but by the death’s mental condition and mental condition at the time of his own diagnosis or treatment, and that it was not evident within the deceased’s mental disease at the time of the deceased.

Therefore, the defendant's disposition of this case is legitimate on the ground that the deceased's suicide is self-injury.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed in its entirety due to the lack of reason. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, it is revoked and all of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges' profit-based (Presiding Judge) Lee Jae-won