[1] The meaning of “self-injury death” under Article 4(6)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, which excludes persons who have rendered distinguished service to the State in cases where a person died due to self-injury, and the standard for determining whether a person is free from the direct motive or important intent of suicide due to stress in performing his/her duty

[2] In a case where a private soldier who was on active duty due to a Army wireless telephone disease committed suicide, the case holding that the deceased's suicide constitutes "self-injury" as provided by Article 4 (6) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State since it is difficult to view that the deceased's suicide was committed in a state where his free will was completely excluded due to the adaptation disorder even if the adaptation disorder accompanied by the depression was an important cause for suicide

[1] Article 4 (6) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State / [2] Article 4 (6) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2002Du4136 Decided November 14, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2004Du7702 Decided October 27, 2004, Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14578 Decided September 14, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1755)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Regional Veterans Administration

Daegu High Court Decision 2009Nu1656 decided May 28, 2010

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Article 4(1)5 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) provides that a soldier is entitled to honorable treatment as a person of distinguished services to the State (including a person who died of a disease in the line of duty) and his/her bereaved family members, etc., while Article 4(6)4 of the same Act provides that a person who meets the above requirements for a person of distinguished services to the State is excluded

In this context, death due to self-injury refers to death according to free will in a grammatic sense. The purport of the law aimed at promoting the stability of life and the improvement of welfare of persons who have sacrificed or contributed to the State and their bereaved family members by providing reasonable honorable treatment (Article 1 of the Act), and its regulatory form, etc. shall not be deemed to be a death according to free will solely for the reason that a soldier’s depression caused by stress in the performance of his/her duties directly or indirectly caused suicide, resulting in suicide. Whether the suicide is free will or not shall be determined after full consideration of the following: the age, character and position of the person who committed suicide; the degree and duration of the tension or gravity caused by stress in the performance of his/her duties to the person who committed suicide; the physical and mental situation of the person who committed suicide; the surrounding circumstances surrounding the person who committed suicide; the outbreak of depression; the timing of occurrence of suicide; the circumstances leading up to suicide; and the existence of existing mental illness and family history (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Du5754, Sept. 17, 2006).

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”). On December 2, 2002, Nonparty 2, who was found to have been subject to serious stress on the deceased’s 0th anniversary of their employment, was unable to carry out her work on the 8th day after being able to identify the deceased’s 1st day after having been on the 3th day after being able to carry out new education on the deceased, and was placed on the 12nd day after being 37th day after being her on the 196th day after being her on the 1st day after being her on the 0th day after being her from the 8th day after having been her from the 0th day after being her was able to carry out her work on the 1st day after being her from the 5th day after being her from the 0th day after being her from the 3th day after having been on the 5th day after having been on the 2nd day after having been on the her day after being on the her.

In addition, according to the records, the deceased died on September 19, 200, when he was in the first grade of the university, and was in the university due to economic difficulties, and was in the first time in the body of the deceased, and was in the body of 16 to 20 years old, he was in the first time in the body of the deceased, and was in the body of 178cm in the height, 178cm in the body of the deceased, 46 to 48 kilograms in the body of the deceased, and was promoted to a one-month disease later than the scheduled date due to omission of education and training, such as receiving hospitalized treatment twice for the right-hand opening operation, etc.

Examining the above facts acknowledged by the court below or based on the records and the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the deceased’s adaptation disorder accompanied by the deceased’s emotional distress during military service was an important cause of suicide, and that the deceased’s adaptation disorder was related to mental stress caused by repeated suspicion and injury, etc., but even if the above duties were under stress on the deceased, it is difficult to conclude that it was difficult to conclude that the deceased’s failure to properly adapt to the military unit due to his family environment, health condition, and weak character was likely to cause the deceased to renounce his life, and that the deceased’s suicide was committed in a state where free will was completely excluded from self-harm due to his adaptation disorder. Accordingly, the deceased’s suicide should be deemed as falling under Article 4(6)4 of the Act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the deceased's death does not constitute self-injury on the sole basis of the above facts are beyond the scope of free will. In so doing, the judgment below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 4 (6) 4 of the Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)