[1] Whether it is an intentional injury to a victim who caused the victim to be "to have the victim injured to the point of view," where the victim "to the point of view," (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an injured person was instigated but the injured person committed murder, liability for the crime of the aided person

[1] In a case where a teacher has instigated a victim to "to help the victim physically and mentally", it is reasonable to see that the victim is a teacher for injury.

[2] In a case where a teacher has instigated another person to injure the latter, but the latter has committed murder in excess of this, the latter generally becomes the principal of the crime of bodily injury. However, in a case where there is a possibility that the latter is negligent or foreseeable as to the result of the death of the latter, the latter may be punished as the principal of the crime of bodily injury.

[1] Articles 31 and 257 of the Criminal Act / [2] Articles 31, 250, and 257 of the Criminal Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 93Do1873 delivered on October 8, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3117)

Defendant

Defendant and Military Prosecutors

Attorney Kim Jong-soo

High Court Decision 96No202, 606 delivered on February 28, 1997

All appeals by the defendant and military prosecutor are dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel

According to each evidence of the judgment of the court of first instance affirmed by the court below, the measures that the court below acknowledged the defendant's crime of injury to the defendant are just and there is no error of law by misconception of facts against the rules of evidence.

As determined by the court below, if the defendant instigated the victim to be in the mental attitude, it is reasonable to see it as a teacher for the injury, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the injured teacher, as alleged in the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, according to the above evidence maintained by the court below, it can be known that the order, the teacher, only by the defendant's teacher, passed a resolution for the execution of the crime. Therefore, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the teacher's crime in the decision of the court below. All arguments are

2. Regarding the grounds of appeal by the military prosecutor

In a case where a teacher has instigated another person to injure the latter, but the latter has committed murder in excess of this, the latter generally becomes the principal of the crime of bodily injury. However, if there is a possibility of negligence or predictability as to the result of the death of the latter, the latter may be punished as the principal of the crime of bodily injury (see Supreme Court Decision 93Do1873 delivered on October 8, 1993).

In light of the records, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on macro-written evidence, and held that it is difficult to recognize that the defendant predicted the result of the victim's death or was negligent in the victim's death, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the crime of aiding and abetting as alleged in the lawsuit. There is no reason to discuss.

3. Therefore, all appeals by the military prosecutor and defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)