When there is no penal provision for attempted crimes, if the independence of the Si conflicts with each other.

Article 19 of the Criminal Code cannot be applied because there is no penal provision for attempted crime in the case of occupational negligence in which the independent act in this city resulted in death, but the act of causing the result is not proved.

Article 19 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and two others

Prosecutor and Defendant

Gwangju District Court 200

We reverse the original judgment.

Defendant 1 shall be punished by imprisonment for five years, by a fine not exceeding 50,000, and by a fine not exceeding 20,000.

When Defendant 2 and 3 do not pay a fine, they shall each be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into a gold of 50 million won a day.

Of the number of days detained prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, 100 days of imprisonment with prison labor, and 20 days of imprisonment with prison labor for Defendant 3 shall be included in the period of detention with prison labor, respectively.

Attached food map 1 (No. 1 out of pressure No. 395 in the original short-term 4293) shall be confiscated from Defendant 1.

Defendants 2 and 3’s non-indicted 5’s negligence in the line of duty shall be acquitted, respectively.

Defendant 1 was serving in the Army on March 27, 4282, and was engaged in happy commercial activities on November 27, 4284, Defendant 2, who passed a medical examination on November 8, 4273 and opened (name 1 omitted) members at the 19th century from September 5, 4274, and operated medical services at the 3rd Emblance City, which caused the death of Non-Indicted Party 1 to the end of the 3rd 5th century, and caused Non-Indicted Party 1 to murder of Non-Indicted Party 1 (name 2 omitted) at the 3rd Eblance City, Non-Indicted Party 1 to whom Non-Indicted Party 3 was located, and Non-Indicted Party 1 to whom Non-Indicted Party 3 was the victim of the same 3rd eblive City on March 4, 293, was the victim of the second eblance 1 to the end of the 3rd eblion City.

Although there is a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of danger by neglecting the duty of care, neglecting the duty of care, and neglecting the inspection of the warden's 200 percent of the total amount of money 25 percent of the total amount of money breath in the victim's complaint, and neglecting the investigation of the director's breath in order to prevent the occurrence of danger, it is likely that garbage to intrude into the part of the container, discharge waste from the outside of the collection, and cause the outside of the collection's counter to the breath in a breathy, and prevent the occurrence of the death of the plaintiff's 25 percent of the total amount of money breath in the outside of the collection. In spite of the fact that there is a duty of care to prevent the occurrence of danger by completely disinfecting the collection of waste from the outside of the collection, it is difficult to find out the waste from the non-indicted 3's display counter to the non-indicted 2,000's counter to the non-indicted 33,000 won.

(1) On April 10, 4292, around 6:6:00 p.m. of the same month and around 6:0 p.m. of the same month, three times before and after 6:0 p.m. of the same month, and all times within 20:0 p.m. (name 2 omitted) won in each City, in which Non-Indicted 5’s bloods and 2 pande’s pande are stationed, respectively.

(2) On the 25th day of the same month, at the 6th day of the 25th day of the same month, at the medical center of the victim non-indicted 5, as at the time of the preceding port, samples of the pande pande pande pande pande gate, and the Defendant dived the Defendant into the left-hand side of the victim by using the Messcis Act for the purpose of generating it, and performed the operation and performed each medical practice. The facts of the judgment against Defendant 1 are as follows:

1. Voluntary statement of the facts in the judgment in the defendant's party process

1. Part of the original judgment's voluntary statement of the same facts as the defendant's judgment

1. The description of each voluntary statement in accordance with the judgment of the accused among the suspect examination records against the accused of handling administrative affairs by a public prosecutor, a judicial police officer, etc.

1. Part of each statement written by the judicial police officer against Non-Indicted 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the witness handling the affairs of the judicial police officer, which complies with the judgment of the same person, etc.

1. Part of the contents to be entered and six copies of the photograph attached to the end of the protocol of verification (No. 29 of the original short-term 4293 of the original records, No. 38 through 43 of the records) of the preparation of a process of handling affairs by judicial police officers, if the records were followed;

1. Facts of existence, as a result of seizure, 1.0 Doz. (No. 1 of the original short-term 4293 pressure No. 395)

1. The part corresponding to the facts stated in the judgment among the medical certificate and the body autopsy report (No. 29 of the original trial, No. 14 and 32 of the records No. 14 and 42 of the original trial, No. 293) on the victim Nonindicted 3 in the preparation of Defendant 2

1. As to the victim Non-Indicted 10’s written expert evidence against the victim Non-Indicted 3 (the files of the records No. 106 through No. 111 of the same record), the contents corresponding to the facts of the judgment can be recognized by integrating them.

The facts of the judgment with respect to Defendant 2

1. Voluntary statement of the facts in the judgment in the defendant's party process

1. Part of the original judgment's voluntary statement of the same facts as the defendant's judgment

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused in accordance with the judgment of the accused among the protocol of suspect examination of each prosecutor and judicial police officer handling affairs

1. Each statement statement made by the prosecutor, the prosecutor, and the senior judicial police officer in response to the facts of the judgment of the same person, etc. among each statement statement made by the witness, Nonindicted 10 and 11.

1. Each statement statement made by the judicial police officer against the witness non-indicted 7, 8, and 9 in accordance with the judgment of the same person, etc. in each statement statement made by the judicial police officer.

1. As to the victim non-indicted 3 of non-indicted 10 prepared by the doctor, the contents corresponding to the facts of the judgment can be recognized by integrating the contents of the appraisal report (No. 29 of the original short-term 4293, No. 106, No. 111 of the records) against the victim non-indicted 3, and the facts of the judgment as to

1. Voluntary statement of the facts in the judgment in the defendant's party process

1. Part of the original judgment's voluntary statement of the same facts as the defendant's judgment

1. Each protocol of suspect examination of the accused in accordance with the judgment of the accused among the protocol of suspect examination of each prosecutor and judicial police officer handling affairs

1. Each statement made by a public prosecutor or judicial police officer against the suspect non-indicted 1 in accordance with the same person's judgment among the suspect interrogation records.

1. Each statement statement made by the prosecutor and judicial police officer against the witness non-indicted 13 and 14 in accordance with the judgment of the same person, etc. among each statement statement made by the prosecutor and judicial police officer

1. Each statement statement made by the prosecutor with respect to Non-Indicted 15 and 16, which corresponds to the facts of the judgment of the Dong, etc.

1. Each statement statement corresponding to the fact that the judicial police officer's disposition on non-indicted 17 and 18's written statement with respect to non-indicted 17 and 18

1. Each judgment is sufficient to prove the existence of one surgery (No. 1 out of No. 542 and 611 of the original pressure No. 542 and 611 of the 4292 pressure of the original trial). As such, each of the facts stated in the judgment is sufficient.

Defendant 1 stated that this case was conducted without examining at all under the condition that it is not capable of discerning things due to the detention, but the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the judicial police officer in the degree of his official attitude in the party process, and the protocol of interrogation of the accused by the judicial police officer.

In full view of the contents of each written statement of Nonindicted 3, 6, and 8 of the witness in the same position, it is difficult for the defendant to recognize that the defendant was able to discern things to the extent that he could not have the ability to discern things, and that the defendant's defense is sufficient to have pride in the fact that he attempted to kill and let the victim Nonindicted 3. Therefore, the defendant's defense is without merit.

Since the court below's decision falls under Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant 1's judgment below constitutes a limited term of punishment within the prescribed term of punishment; five years; and the court below's decision falls under Article 268 of the same Act; and the defendant 2's judgment below constitutes a fine of 50,000 won; the defendant 3's judgment below falls under subparagraph 1 of Article 60 of the Medical Service Act; since it is a concurrent crime of Article 37 of the same Act; the defendant's judgment below's judgment below's judgment below's judgment below's decision falls under Article 38 (1) 2 of the same Act and Article 38 (1) 50 of the same Act applies Article 38 (2) of the same Act to the punishment of imprisonment with prison labor within the prescribed term of punishment; the defendant's judgment below's judgment below's judgment below's 90 million won to increase the amount of punishment for violation of the Medical Service Act's punishment; the defendant 200 days of the above punishment of 10.

Defendant 2, among the facts charged against Defendant 3, the victim was found to have been deprived of 42.4.25 p.m., and the victim was found to have been deprived of 1 p.m. 5 p.m. c. c. c. c. c. s. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c.

If it is true whether this case constitutes a case where the independent act of this city constitutes a case where it is not proven that the act was caused by the result. As to the crime of occupational negligence, there is no provision punishing an attempted crime in the crime of occupational negligence, so Article 19 of the Criminal Act does not apply, and there is no exception on the punishment of the same crime, such as the crime of bodily injury, it eventually leads to the absence of proof that the crime of occupational negligence was caused by the victim non-indicted 5 of the victim 2 and 3 in the crime of occupational negligence, and thus, each

As the judgment of the court below differs from the result, the main indictment against the defendant 1, 2 and the prosecutor's defendant 3 is justified and the prosecutor's office is without merit. Thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 364 (2) and (3) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Judges Yoon-chul (Presiding Judge) and Kim Dong-dong, and Hongnam