All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles were found to have caused the victim to have been at least 5 to 10 times by hand, but the degree of the assault did not cause the victim's death.

In addition, there is a time interval of six days between the defendant's assault and the detection of the victim who died, and there is another cause, such as the victim's physical body under the influence of alcohol and the victim's injury to his own body without suffering from alcohol addiction. Thus, there is a relation between the assault by the defendant and the death of the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

B. At the time of the Defendant’s assault, the Defendant could not have predicted the death of the victim due to his own assault.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of death or injury, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (five years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below against the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles 1) Since the crime of death resulting in bodily injury is an aggravated crime, in order to be recognized as the crime of death resulting from bodily injury, there should be a possibility of predicting the substantial relation between the result of injury and death and the result of death, in addition to the crime of bodily injury. Whether such predictability exists or not should be strictly conducted by examining specific situations, such as the degree of injury and response status of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do186, Mar. 25, 2005; 2003Do2796, Dec. 26, 2003). Even if the act of franchis and the victim died from flachising, even if considerable time has elapsed between the time until the victim died from flachising lebnosis and the victim died from flachising.

In other words, it was arbitable.