logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 (창원) 2016.09.07 2016노245
상해치사
Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the candidate for medical treatment and custody is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The fact that the defendant of mistake of facts and the requester for medical treatment and custody (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") had drinking alcohol with the victim before the victim died; however, there is no fact that the victim had inflicted bodily injury on the victim; even if the victim had inflicted bodily injury, proximate causal relation between the injury and the death of the victim and the possibility of the death of the victim is not acknowledged.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, since it found guilty of the facts charged in this case.

B. The Defendant, at the time of committing the instant crime, was in the state of mental disorder due to the insane condition, should be exempted from punishment.

C. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (three years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination of the accused case

A. 1) Since the crime of death or injury is an aggravated crime, in order to be recognized as the crime of death or injury, there is a possibility of predictability of proximate causal relation between the result of injury and death and the result of death in addition to the crime of injury and injury. Whether such predictability exists or not shall be strictly determined by examining specific circumstances, such as the degree of injury and response status of the victim, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2005Do186, Mar. 25, 2005; 2003Do2796, Dec. 26, 2003). Meanwhile, even if considerable time has elapsed between the former act and the victim’s death due to thirropical thirrosis, if there was no other evidence to discover the intermediate causes of death, the causal relation between the victim and the victim’s death cannot be adopted by the investigation of evidence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do478, Apr. 12, 1984).

arrow