[1] The meaning of “self-injury” excluded from the registration of a person of distinguished service to the State under Article 4(6)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State, and the standard for determining whether suicide due to stress in the performance of duty of a soldier depends on free will

[2] The case holding that, in case where a person committed suicide within a military unit due to the depression that occurred while serving as a staff member of the Marine Corps, it is difficult to view that the deceased's suicide was committed under the full exclusion of free will due to depression, and thus, the deceased's suicide constitutes a suicide under Article 4 (6) 4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Service to the State

[1] Articles 1, 4(1)5, (2)3, and (6)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; Article 3(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 2009) / [2] Articles 1, 4(1)5, (2)3, and (6)4 of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State; Article 3(1)5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Act on the Honorable Treatment and Support of Persons, etc. of Distinguished Services to the State (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21686, Aug. 13, 200

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2005Du14578 decided Sep. 14, 2006 (Gong2006Ha, 1755)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Head of Daegu Regional Veterans Administration

Daegu High Court Decision 2010Nu543 decided August 13, 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 lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment, Nonparty 1 (hereinafter “the deceased”). On the 15th of November, 200, the deceased were sent to the 2nd of the 3rd of the 6th of the 2nd of the 6th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3th of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the death.

In addition, the record reveals the following facts: (a) on August 10, 2002, the Deceased had a fluorous fluoral surgery, fluoral fluor, and gal fluor’s symptoms, such as fluor, fluoral fluor, and fluoral fluor’s, began from the second year of high school; (b) although the Deceased, as a noncommissioned Officer of the Marine Corps, he was engaged in fluoral fluoral activities in the military unit, he/she took away in the military unit for a long time, or used fluoral fluoral fluor’s surgery, etc.

Examining the above facts acknowledged by the court below or based on the records, and the legal principles as seen earlier, the deceased’s depression became an important cause of suicide and the depression of the deceased is presumed to be related to mental stress due to repeated injury, etc. by a superior during his duty. However, even if the above duties were under stress on the deceased, it is difficult to readily conclude that the deceased’s failure to properly adapt to the military unit’s life due to the weak character of the deceased, and as a whole, it is possible for the deceased to choose suicide as a means of actual exposure to the death, and in light of various circumstances such as the deceased’s behavior at the time of his suicide, etc., it is difficult to view that the deceased’s suicide constitutes self-injury under Article 4(6)4 of the Act. Therefore, the deceased’s suicide should be deemed to fall under self-injury as provided for in 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)