Cases where causal relationship between death and violence is recognized;

In order for the Defendants to escape from a bankway under the influence of the victims, there is a causal link with the above assault that the Defendants attempted to escape by committing violence, such as committing violence, such as harming the victim to “the sponsed sponsed sponsed sponsed spons,” and committing sponsed sponsed sponsed spons, thereby causing the sponser to die from the floor of the river under the bank with a height of

Article 17 of the Criminal Act

Defendant 1 and one other

Prosecutor and Defendant

Daegu District Court of the first instance (68 High Court Decision 6622)

The judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed.

A defendant, etc. shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred thirty-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence: Provided, That the execution of the said sentence shall be suspended for five years from the date when the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

Summary of the Prosecutor's Grounds for Appeal

As to the facts charged of this case against the defendant et al., the court below acknowledged each assault committed by the defendant et al., and found the defendant et al. not guilty of the death because the causal relationship between the harmful act committed by the defendant et al. and the death of the victim cannot be recognized, but the court below recognized the facts of this case as recognized in the court below, since the victim et al. attempted to escape from the assault committed by the defendant et al., and died of cerebral le, the causal relationship exists. Accordingly, the court below

Summary of Defendant 2’s grounds for appeal

In the instant case, since the victim non-indicted 1 was able to see it as a stone, the court below found that the defendant committed an assault against the victim or scambling the scambling of the scambling of the above victim, even though the scambling of the scambling of the scambling of the victim.

Summary of the grounds for appeal by the defense counsel of the defendant

The court below erred in the determination of evidence and misjudgments the facts, and the sentencing is too excessive and unfair.

The grounds for appeal by the public prosecutor and the defendant 2 shall also be examined.

In this case, comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted by the court below, since there was a fighting between the defendant, etc. and the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2, who were soldiers of the air force, and the defendant 2 fighted with the non-indicted 2, as recognized by the court below, and the party members can easily recognize the fact that the defendant 2 fightd with the non-indicted 1, and committed an act of violence. Thus, it is unreasonable to discuss the appeal of the non-indicted 2 (and his defense counsel) on this point, but the testimony and the testimony of the non-indicted 3 witness witness of this case to the non-indicted 4 and the non-indicted 5's testimony at the police station (each statement of the police officer, etc. about the non-indicted 6 and the non-indicted 1's death and the non-indicted 2's death were not admissible by the non-indicted 1's judgment and the non-indicted 1's judgment that the non-indicted 1 and the non-indicted 2's body's death were not admissible.

(Criminal) On April 24, 1968, at around 22:00, the defendant et al.: around 00:30 on April 25, 1968, when drinking at a new horse-based management drinking house located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong, 1, 836, the defendant et al., left the house for transportation at around 00:0:30 of the same month, and 22 persons, et al., enter the house for transportation at the 107 base station, and scambling the scambling between the defendant et al., and the defendant et al. who flow the scambling of the scambling at around 01:30, the defendant et al., was scambling with the non-indicted 2, and the defendant 2 was scambling with the non-indicted 1 and the defendant 1, et al., al., who was under his influence against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2.

(Evidence Relationship) The facts of the judgment, whether or not,

1. Each part of the statements made by the defendant, etc. in the party proceedings consistent with the facts stated therein;

1. The part of the statement that corresponds to the facts of the judgment in the party proceedings of Nonindicted 3

1. Contents of each statement consistent with the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, which corresponds to the defendant, etc. and witness 3

1. Contents of each statement consistent with the facts in the judgment among the suspect examination records against the accused by a prosecutor, etc.;

1. Details of each statement consistent with the judgment in the protocol of statement made by Nonindicted 3, 4, and 5 regarding the preparation of handling affairs by judicial police officers;

1. Each description of the death diagnosis and the written autopsy of the body of Non-Indicted 1 prepared by the doctor for Non-Indicted 6, as to Non-Indicted 1’s non-Indicted 6.

Since the facts of the judgment can be recognized by taking into account the facts are sufficient to prove.

(Application of Act) The so-called brupt of assault by the defendant et al. falls under Articles 262, 259(1) and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the defendant et al. shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than three years within the prescribed term, and one hundred and thirty-five days of the number of detention days before the sentence is declared in accordance with Article 57 of the Criminal Act. According to the circumstances of this case, the defendant et al. returned to the defendant et al. that the victim et al. al. al. of the contact loan where the defendant et al. al. are living together without permission when the victim et al. intrudes on the drinking al. where the defendant et al. are living together with the drinking al., but the victim et al. al. al. al. al. al. al. were faced with this accident. Thus, the defendant et al. al. al. was faced with this accident.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)