14 years of age and three months of age are intelligent to change responsibility for illegal activities according to social norms, unless there are special circumstances.

A person for whom 14 years of age and 3 years of age have been intelligent to change his responsibility for illegal activities according to social norms, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 753 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others (Attorney Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1

Defendant 2

Gwangju High Court Decision 68Na170 delivered on August 10, 1968

All appeals are dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part of the appeal by the plaintiffs is assessed against the plaintiffs, and that of the appeal by the defendant 2 is assessed against the same defendant.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

1. If the court intends to recognize a minor's ability to assume responsibility for illegal acts, the court shall deliberate and decide on whether the minor's intelligence has limited liability by developing it to the extent that it can identify the vision of vision, and shall specify it in the reason for the judgment. However, this point is not necessarily required to be deliberated and decided separately by evidence, but if the court can recognize the ability to assume responsibility based on facts of illegal acts as stated in the judgment, it does not constitute an unlawful act that affirms the ability to assume responsibility. In light of the facts established at the time of the judgment, the court below did not err by finding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment, unless it confirmed the situation before and after the illegal acts committed by the non-party 1 based on evidence and confirmed the illegal acts committed by the non-party 1, who was 14 years and 3 months in age as of the time of the judgment, unless there is a special circumstance (such as mental disorder or low skills) by social norms, it cannot be deemed that the non-party was incapable of propagating the responsibility for illegal acts. Therefore, it cannot be justified.

2. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the defendant 1 also participated in the tort of this case. The court below's decision cannot be deemed to have violated the rule of experience even after examining the original judgment based on the records, and it cannot be deemed to have been against the rules of evidence to have rejected the part of testimony that the non-party 2 testified by the witness non-party 2 in good faith, and it cannot be deemed to have erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles of his joint tort.

Defendant 2's grounds of appeal are examined.

Even if the original judgment and records were prepared, it cannot be said that the original judgment was unlawful on the ground that the original judgment was sufficient to the extent of the reasoning of the original judgment with respect to the motive thereof, and that the original judgment did not deliberate on the more fundamental cause, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts in the original judgment.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-dong (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)