[1] The elements for establishing the crime of aiding and abetting suicide under Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Code

[2] The case affirming the judgment below which acknowledged the crime of aiding and abetting suicide in case where the victim committed suicide with gasoline dust and fire with the victim's body while she was "I wish to die" or "the same deceased" and the defendant's defect that caused oil to die, and the defendant committed suicide with gasoline dust and fire

[1] Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Code / [2] Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1148 delivered on July 24, 1992 (Gong1992, 2605) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1373 Delivered on June 10, 2005 (Gong2005Ha, 1203)

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Law Firm Dongin, Attorneys Kim Jong-sik et al.

Busan High Court Decision 2009No311 decided Feb. 3, 2010

All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Prosecutor’s Grounds of Appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in light of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the court below determined that it is not sufficient to recognize the facts immediately on the basis of the body of the victim, considering the following circumstances as stated in its reasoning: (a) it is difficult to view that the victim was frighted while the victim was frighted with his body without being frighted; (b) it is difficult to recognize the motive for the Defendant’s murder; and (c) considering the parts and degree of the body of the victim other than the image, the parts and degree of the image suffered by the Defendant, and other circumstances, it is insufficient to recognize the primary facts charged that the Defendant was frighted with the victim’s fright while the victim was frighted; and (d) it is not sufficient to recognize the facts immediately on the basis of the fright, blood transfusion, etc. discovered from the victim’s body, and there is no evidence to acknowledge them otherwise.

In light of the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or the principle of trial of evidence as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. Therefore, the prosecutor's grounds of appeal

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

The crime of aiding and abetting a suicide under Article 252 (2) of the Criminal Act is established by having a person who intends to commit a suicide easily by attempting to commit the act of aiding and abetting a person to commit a suicide. In order to establish such a crime, the existence of an act of aiding and abetting a specific person to commit a suicide and the recognition of an offender on such act is required (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1148, Jul. 24, 1992; 2005Do1373, Jun. 10, 2005, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, according to the evidence duly adopted by the court below, the court below determined as follows: the victim wanted to die or saluted to die while engaging in a dispute with the defendant on the new wall of this case on the same day, and the defendant saluted to die with oil; accordingly, the defendant was dead to death with the victim; but the victim was found to have committed suicide with gasoline saluted to the victim, and immediately thereafter, the victim was found to have committed suicide with gasoline saluted to the victim's body; and if the victim's suicide circumstance such as the victim's child problem, salutism, and economic difficulties, etc. were taken into account in the victim's suicide situation, the court below determined that the victim saluted to commit suicide with gasoline even if it was sufficiently anticipated that the victim may commit suicide with the victim at the time of this case at the time of this case. In light of all the circumstances decided by the court below, the judgment below is just in accordance with the above legal principles and there

B. Ground of appeal No. 3

The above ground of appeal is that the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts in determining the punishment against the defendant, and this constitutes an assertion of unfair sentencing. According to Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for not less than ten years is imposed, an appeal on the ground of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence is imposed against the defendant, the above argument is

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)