207Ma698 Abandonment, etc. (leviated abandonment of a recognized crime)

Defendant

Housing Bupyeong-gu in Incheon (hereinafter referred to as "resident Bupyeong-gu").

Reference domicile in Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted)

nan

Attorney Park Do-young

October 10, 2008

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Facts of crime

On July 1, 2007, the Defendant is a security guard of IT apartment complex located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted). At around 30, the Defendant: (a) found a victim who was off from the DH apartment stairs located in the Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government (hereinafter omitted) and sniffed in the Haak-gu, and sniffed in the Haak-gu, and knife and knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife kn

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness;

1. The written statement by each police officer on gambling, ○○, ○○, and ○○○;

1. A complaint (including a contract attached thereto);

1. A copy of the results of handling investigation reports, criminal cases, and command and suggestions;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 271(1) of the Criminal Act (Selection of Imprisonment)

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (Taking into account various circumstances, such as the age, character and conduct, and circumstances after the crime, etc. of the defendant recorded in the records of this case, such as the fact that the defendant has no same criminal record and is against the result of the crime

Judgment on Defendant and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. The assertion;

The Defendant asserted that, at the time of discovering the victim from the instant underground stairs, the Defendant was snicking with the victim, and the victim was locked with knicking on several occasions, and did not occur, and thus, he was merely under drinking and was not aware that the victim was in need of aid at the time of the instant case, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intent to commit abandonment.

2. Determination

A. The crime of abandonment under the Criminal Act is established when a person under the legal or contractual obligation to protect a person in need of assistance abandons it, which is established in relation to "in case where the person in need of assistance abandons it," and "the person in need of assistance" refers to a person who is unable to overcome by himself/herself any danger to his/her own life or body or is considerably difficult to overcome it, because he/she cannot perform the basic action necessary for another person's daily life without any aid due to mental or physical defects. The criteria for determining whether a person who is not the person in need of assistance is likely to perform his/her basic action in consideration of mental or physical ability or condition and other specific circumstances, and the "limited abandonment" refers to the act that causes danger to his/her life and body by leaving the person in need of assistance in a state where there is no protection, which can be done by omission.

B. First, we examine whether the Defendant is obligated to protect the contract.

According to the above evidence, Article 12 of the Security Contract between the security company to which the defendant belongs and the representative meeting of the occupants of the apartment of this case provides that "The security company shall have the duty to prevent danger and injury, such as theft, fire, congestion, unauthorized intrusion, etc. of human life and property in the facilities subject to security determined by the resident representative meeting" (refer to the investigation record 14 pages). Thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant who conducts the security service of the apartment of this case bears the duty to provide assistance under the contract to prevent danger and injury to the occupants of the apartment of this case and its incidental facilities, and protect their human life, etc.

C. Furthermore, we examine whether the victim was in a state requiring assistance.

According to the above evidence, the victim, who is the resident of the apartment of this case, is the victim of this case on June 30, 2007.

21: From 30 to 23: The fact that the above apartment house had drinking alcohol with 100 meters away from the above apartment house; ② the above apartment security guards, around 15, 2007: the victim was drunk from the above apartment apartment apartment stairs, and the victim was able to have been able to break out on several occasions, but the victim was not able to break out. ③ At the time of discovery, the victim was able to get off the part of the victim's bar, and the victim was knee in the other bridge, and the victim was able to get off the victim's bar at the same time. ④ The defendant still was able to get off the part of the victim's bar at the time of so-called "I cannot get off the victim's bar," and ④ The defendant was able to get off the victim's bar at the time of the above fact that he was able to get off the victim's bar, and ④ The defendant was able to get off the victim's bar at the time of the victim's latest 35 hours."

The following facts revealed in the facts of recognition: (a) At the time of the instant case, the victim was unable to engage in basic activities necessary for daily life, such as finding his house by drinking, and (b) the victim's clothes or behavior, etc., and the defendant could have easily anticipated that he was an apartment resident; (c) the defendant could have easily anticipated that he was an apartment resident; (d) the defendant could have sufficiently predicted that there are anything wrongs in the victim's health condition in light of the fact that he was aware that he was the maximum ○○ and the cause of the blood trace of the victim, even though he was aware that the victim's entrance was small, he did not take any measures such as informing the victim's family or rescue organization of the situation through the cell phone, and the defendant did not have a duty to protect the victim without taking any measures such as protecting the victim's body when taking account of the fact that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, and (d) even considering the fact that the victim was under the influence of alcohol, the victim was under the duty to protect the victim's body.

Parts of innocence

1. Summary of this part of the facts charged

On July 1, 2007: at around 30 30, the Defendant: (a) found the victim who was off the Hashe from the underground stairs of the ID apartment, sniffly sniffly sniffly sniffly sniffly sniffly sniff and sniffly sniffly sniffly sniffs; and (b) abandoned the victim without taking any measure up to 08:0 on the same day, and caused the victim

2. Defendant’s defense;

The Defendant did not know at all that the Defendant suffered brain damage and was under the influence of alcohol and did not anticipate that the result of the death would be the result of taxing.

3. Determination:

A. In full view of the following facts: (a) the Defendant and the ○○○○ witness’s each legal statement; (b) the statement of each police protocol on the suspect’s interrogation of the Defendant, the lowest ○, ○○○, and Gabbb Park; (c) the statement of the police officer on the result of handling the case and the direction; and (d) the statement of each investigation report; and (e) the video of the drilling (d) the Defendant and the lowest ○○○ was snbling the victim with smelling and cos at the time of the first detection of the victim; (c) the victim was snbling and sbling the victim at the time of the first detection of the victim; and (d) the victim was able to look at the victim’s scambling and scambling in and around the floor; (d) the Defendant and the lowest ○○ was able to see the fact that the victim was scam out of the victim’s body at the time of his death.

B. The following facts revealed in the facts as seen earlier: (i) it is difficult to view that the Defendant, at the time of discovery of the victim, was aware of a specific situation that could cause danger to life because of the victim’s no particular external wound, unlike the visual images of the variable photograph taken around 00: (ii) it is difficult to view that the Defendant had no other evidence to prove the situation at the time of the first discovery of the victim, including the content of the Defendant’s statement about the scene at the time of discovery of the victim’s body and the image at the time of discovery of the victim’s body, the victim’s condition and surrounding site image, etc. However, there is no other evidence to prove the situation at the time of the first discovery of the victim; (iii) it is difficult to determine that the Defendant had no other evidence to prove the situation at the time of the victim’s first discovery, such as the Defendant and the maximum ○○, used it as an apartment complex, and frequently experienced it: (iv) it is difficult to expect that the victim was able to have brightnessly brightness, and me by the victim’s.

4. Conclusion

If so, this part of the facts charged against the defendant constitutes a case without proof of a crime and thus should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, or as long as the defendant is found guilty of a crime of abandonment related to this crime, the judgment of innocence shall not be rendered

Judges of the presiding judge

Judges

Impossibility of signing and sealing by a judge leave;

The presiding judge