If there is a causal relationship, but there is no possibility of expectation of the occurrence of the result, the nature of the result double crime.

Article 15 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that if an offender could not anticipate the occurrence of the result at the time of the act, the perpetrator shall not be punished as a serious crime even if there is a causal relationship between the act and the result.

Article 15(2) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Kim Jong-tae

Daegu High Court Decision 87No1313 delivered on October 21, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 15 (2) of the Criminal Code provides that if an offender could not anticipate the occurrence of the result at the time of the act, it shall not be punishable as a serious crime even if there is a causal relationship between the act and the result.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that, based on evidence, the defendant's act of indecent act by force against the victim, such as the victim, etc. who was frightened in the drinking house with 5 women at night, and all the other parties of the drinking house were sexual intercourse with each other. The defendant and the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 2 were to take a frighten in the drinking house due to lack of drinking value, and when the defendant and the non-indicted 1, and the non-indicted 2 were to take a frighten in the fright at the frighten house, and the victim frighten in the fright at the frighten house and frighten in the fright at the frighten house, the defendant cannot be held liable for the death of the victim without any other evidence to avoid the death of the victim in the following circumstances.

In light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below and the above determination that the defendant has no predictability as to the result of the death of the victim is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the result of aggravated crimes as alleged.

The Supreme Court's precedents are inconsistent with the above opinion as to the result of an aggravated crime, unless the case differs from the matter in this case. The argument is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)