In the case of a statement of reasons for appeal additionally submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal

The grounds for appeal filed after the deadline for submitting the appellate brief shall be sufficient to determine to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of the grounds for appeal filed within the deadline.

Articles 361-3, 364, and 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court of the first instance (74Da189)

Supreme Court Decision 75Do218 Delivered on March 25, 1975

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

The detention days prior to the pronouncement of the judgment of the court below shall be included in the above sentence.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel (the grounds for appeal by the defendant, which was submitted after the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal, are determined only to the extent that supplementation of the grounds for appeal submitted within the deadline for submitting the grounds for appeal), first, the defendant was only the fact that the defendant was suffering from the defendant's rain during the time of the defendant's death because Non-Indicted 1, who is the victim, was unable to take room, and the defendant did not have any causal relationship with the victim's death, the court below accepted the main facts charged by the prosecutor and found the defendant guilty, and the judgment of the court below is erroneous, and second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable.

First of all, we examine the first ground for appeal of the same kind. The court below stated that the evidence cited by the prosecutor in order to recognize the private person of the victim in this case, and there is each statement of the non-indicted 2 and 3 prepared by the prosecutor. In light of the statement of the non-indicted 2, Non-indicted 2, the non-indicted 2 suffered from severe injury, the non-indicted 2 completely cured the victim's non-indicted 2, and the non-indicted 2 completely cured the operation. After the operation, after the operation, the lapary laption was caused by a lapary and the lapary lapary lapy was caused by a complication, and the lapy lapy was generally caused by a complication, but it could not occur as in the case of this case. In light of the statement of the non-indicted 3, the victim in this case was removed from the lapy lapy operation to treat the lap, and it can be found that the lapy lapy.

In full view of each of the above statements, the victim first suffered from an injury of non-explosion and was completely cured of the medical treatment, and at the second operation to cure the aftermath of the operation, the victim died due to a merger certificate, and at the same time, he/she received an operation of non-explosion, but could not suffer cruel treatment. However, in this case, the issue of whether it was due to the doctor's failure to perform the medical treatment cannot be resolved.

Therefore, even though there is insufficient evidence to find that there is a causal link with the occurrence of the General Round, which is the cause of death or death, and there is no other evidence to prove that there is a causal link, the judgment of the court below held that there is a causal link with the death of the victim based on the above evidence shall not be deemed to have been committed in violation of the rules of evidence, by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

Therefore, since the appeal by the defendant is well-grounded, there is no reason to view the remaining grounds for appeal, the judgment of the court below should not be reversed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are again decided as follows.

(Criminal Facts)

On January 17, 1970, the Defendant was sentenced to 8 months of imprisonment for fraud at the Seoul District Criminal Court, and was released from prison prison at the time of early April of the same year. At the beginning of June 1971, 23:00, at the defendant's house located at the defendant's house located at 1, 37 years old in Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Defendant considered that the defendant's wife Non-Indicted 1 (37 years old) was faced by the defendant's wife at the inside of the defendant's house located at 1, 1971, 200, and considered that he was flick, and she was flick and flicked with Non-Indicted 4 (the age of 17 years old), and she flicked with water in the kitchen and took a dangerous object (the continuous so called "flicking flick").

(Abstract of Evidence)

1. Statement that conforms to the facts set forth in the judgment of the court below and at the time of transmission;

1. Statement that corresponds to the facts indicated in the protocol of examination of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. The statement that corresponds to the part and degree of the injury in the judgment among the statement statement made by the prosecutor against Nonindicted 2 in the preparation of the prosecutor

1. Each statement made with respect to Nonindicted 5 and 6, which conforms to the facts indicated in the judgment, prepared by the judicial police officer handling affairs;

1. Records of verification that conform to the facts in the judgment from among the verification records prepared by judicial police officers handling business;

1. In full view of the records of criminal records on the defendant's identity inquiry prepared by the Director General, it is sufficient to prove such facts.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The judgment of the defendant falls under Article 3 (2) and (1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant has been subject to the judgment, the defendant is subject to repeated crimes within the limit of the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act in accordance with Article 35 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant is subject to repeated crimes in accordance with Article 35 of the same Act, and the defendant also has a reason to take into account the circumstances of the crime, such as the fact that the error is remarkably divided after the crime was committed. Thus, the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year within the scope of the term of punishment mitigated by discretionary punishment in accordance with Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and 80 days from the number of

The summary of the principal facts charged is that the defendant, as stated in the judgment of the court, caused the illness of the closed dynasium, such as the dynasium, etc., by an operation to give the victim a fynasium and treat the fynasium, and the fynasium 2, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, caused the death of the fynasium at the fynasium of the college No. 1 attached to the college of the fynasium of the fynasium of the fynasium of the fynasium of the fynasium of the fynasium of the fynasium, etc.,

It is so decided as per Disposition with the above reasons.

Judges Shin Jae-chul (Presiding Judge)