beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (as to the death resulting in bodily injury in existence), the victim’s death does not result in the Defendant’s act of injury as stated in paragraph 2 of the crime.
In addition, even if the relation between the death of the victim and the injury of the defendant was recognized, the defendant could not have predicted the result of the death of the victim at the time of the above injury.
Nevertheless, the lower court which found the Defendant guilty of the charge of death resulting from bodily injury in existence erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the judgment
2) In the event that the Defendant was physically and mentally weak due to depression at the time of committing the death resulting in bodily injury to the existence of the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the physical and mental weakness.
3) The sentence of the lower court (six years of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. In the case of the crime of injury by legal doctrine, even if the Defendant’s act did not directly cause the death of the victim, if the result of death was caused by combining other indirect causes caused by the crime (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do17648, Mar. 15, 2012). In addition, the crime of death by bodily injury is an aggravated crime, i.e., the possibility of predicting the result of death as a result of the so-called aggravated crime, i.e., the possibility of predicting the consequence of the death, and the existence of such predictability should be strictly determined by examining specific circumstances, such as the degree of injury and response status of the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Do1596, Sept. 25, 190).