The case which acquitted the murder, which is the primary charge, on the ground that there is no evidence to prove the intention of murder, and found guilty only of the death resulting from special obstruction of public duty, which is the ancillary charge.

The case finding the defendant guilty of the death of the victim, which is the primary charge of murder and of obstruction of public duty, since it could not be readily concluded that the defendant predicted the death of the victim at the time of the crime of this case and attempted to avoid the collision with the victim, just because it was possible to conclude that the victim had been killed with the intent of to escape from the control of the victim, who is a traffic police officer, and caused the victim to die with the clothes of the victim. However, the defendant tried to avoid the collision with the victim by fasting the hand of the Ortooba in the right right right right right, and due to the above collision, the defendant also sustained serious injury, such as brain, etc. requiring seven weeks medical treatment, and sent back to the hospital.

Articles 250, 144(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorney Nam-sik

Daejeon High Court Decision 97No571 delivered on April 7, 1998

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a maximum term of four years, by a short term of three years, and by a fine of 150,000 won.

When the above fine is not paid, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 30,000 won into one day.

149 days of detention prior to the rendering of this judgment shall be included in the above imprisonment.

Criminal facts

At around 15:20 on May 31, 1997, the Defendant: (a) driven the west-west (vehicle number omitted); (b) driven the west-gun (vehicle number omitted); (c) driven the west-do Yancheon-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seocheon-gun; (d) driven the front passage of the gate officer located in the west-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, in a speed from the west to the west-do 90km; (c) instructed the Defendant to stop the operation of the ice-do 150 meters away from the center of the front direction; (d) discovered the police officer belonging to the Seocheon Police Station, Seocheon-gu, Police Station, and Police Station, which ordered the Defendant to stop the operation of the ice-do 150 meters away from the center of the west-do 1997; and (d) caused the said victim to die the above part of the upper part of the west-do to the death caused by a shock shock shock.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statements corresponding thereto in part by the defendant in this court;

1. Statement corresponding thereto in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Statement corresponding to the interrogation protocol of the accused prepared by the public prosecutor;

1. Statement corresponding thereto among the statement statements made by the assistant judicial police officers in the order of judicial police officer preparation;

1. Each statement corresponding to the actual status of the preparation of an assistant judicial police officer and a protocol of seizure;

1. Statement that corresponds to the private person as indicated in the judgment among a written investigation of the corpse of the preparation of a medical doctor Kim Shin (name omitted);

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts;

Articles 144(2) and (1), 136(2) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of death or injury caused by special obstruction of public duty, choice of limited imprisonment), Article 111-2, and Article 40(1) of the Road Traffic Act (the occupation of driver's license for a motor vehicle, the choice of a fine)

2. Statutory mitigation;

Article 60(2) of the Juvenile Act, Article 55(1)3 and 6 of the Criminal Act (limited to a minor)

3. Aggravation of concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37 and Article 38(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Imposition of Imprisonment and fine)

4. Sentence of an irregular sentence;

Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act

5. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

6. Calculation of the number of days under detention before sentencing;

Article 57 of the Criminal Act

Parts of innocence

1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the facts charged as to the death resulting from special obstruction of public duty is as follows: (a) the Defendant driving of the above Obane around 15:20 on May 31, 1997 at a speed of 90km from the west to Seosan, and (b) discovered the above victim's front passage toward the Defendant at a speed of 150km, and making a stop order at the center of the 150 meters prior to the center line, the above victim's stop order is neglected and proceeds in order to prevent the above victim from controlling the above victim, and if the above victim does not avoid it, the above victim may receive the above Oba and cause the death of the above victim. However, the above victim's death at the center near the central line of the above victim without a reduction of damage, and instead, the above Obaba, caused the above victim to kill the victim at the scene.

2. Defendant’s defense;

On the other hand, the defendant found the victim's b0 meters earlier from the point of the accident of this case 20 meters away from the left side of the defendant's running direction to run away from the check of the victim, and argued that the above victim did not shock the above victim by the wind if the above victim goes beyond the central line in order to prevent the defendant's moving along the running lane and the course of the defendant, and to prevent damage to the opposite lane, and that the above victim did not shock the above victim by the wind.

3. Determination

A. The defendant's attempt to escape from the control of the above victim was to look at the above victim without reducing the speed of the above stoba in order to threaten the above victim, and it was recognized as above that the above stoba in front of the above stoba and caused the victim to die after taking the clothes of the above stoba.

B. Therefore, we examine further whether the defendant had the intent to kill the above victim at the time of the above crime.

(1) First of all, the gist of the Defendant’s statement made at the prosecutor’s office is that, if the Defendant thought that the Defendant might kill people at a speed different from the above 90km per hour, it would have been able to kill people, the said victim would be frighten, and if the Defendant proceeded at the speed, the said victim would have been frighted, and the Defendant would have died by shocking the above victim at a speed other than speed of the above stobane.

In light of the above facts, the defendant's above statement at the prosecutor's office was tried to avoid the conflict with the above victim because the above defendant, just before he shocked the above victim as the above Oralba, was the right side of Oralba, and the defendant tried to avoid the above conflict with the above victim (each fact-finding report prepared by the judicial police assistant, which was left to the right side immediately after the collision with the above Oralba, was returned to the amba, which was about about 40 meters away from the shock point). Due to the above conflict, the defendant was deprived of awareness of brain, etc. requiring seven weeks medical treatment, and was sent to the hospital (each injury diagnosis report prepared by the doctor's seat). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there is no evidence to conclude that the defendant got the above victim with the intent to anticipate the death of the above victim even at the time of committing the crime of this case, and got the victim to accept or implied it.

However, according to the protocol of interrogation prepared by the public prosecutor, the above statement alone appears to be sufficient to recognize the criminal intent of this case, since such statement is the fact that the above victim was dead due to the defendant's act in light of the defendant's statement that the defendant killed the above victim (Article 133 of the Investigation Record), but in light of the circumstances after the crime, etc. as seen earlier, such statement is the fact that the above victim was dead due to the defendant's act. Thus, in the misapprehension of the legal principle that it would be likely to be a crime of murder, it seems that the confession as to the formal appearance that the above victim was killed by shocking the above victim was made.

(2) In addition, it is insufficient to readily conclude that the Defendant had the intent to kill the said victim at the time of the instant crime, solely on the basis of each of the statement made by the police and the court and the Nonindicted Party 1 (the punishment of the said victim) who did not directly witness the accident site and the objective situation at the police station of Nonindicted Party 2 (the father of the Defendant), and each of the statement made by the actual survey document stating the contents thereof, that the Defendant had the intent to kill the said victim at the time of the instant crime, and that there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. If so, the facts charged in the primary charge must be pronounced not guilty in accordance with the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act because there is no proof of a crime. However, as long as the court found the defendant guilty of a crime resulting from special obstruction of public duty as stated in the preliminary charge, the court shall not

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

Judges Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Judge)