2012 Highest 598 Abandonment, etc.

1. Stambling0

2. The door00

Freeboard (Criminal Prosecution), Compensation (Public Trial)

Attorney Han-gu (Law Firm Han-gu, Counsel for the defendants)

December 6, 2012

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of each of the above penalties shall be suspended for three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Facts of crime

From May 9, 2012, the Defendants, as parents of * (23 years old) suffering from mental illness such as depression, etc. : around 00, the Defendants took the victim from the victim to the victim to the victim to the victim to the victim to the victim to the 00 intersection of the Doluri-gu, Daejeon, the mother of the Defendant, Doluri-gu, and the 00 intersection of the victim to the victim, and began to move the victim to the victim to the victim at the above church.

On May 14, 2012: 07: at around 00, the Defendants: (a) put the locked victim under the pretext that the locked victim would be excluded from the transportation of the victim, his father, and was bound by the pressure of the victim, and (b) combine the victim's hand and his step into the pressure her body once again. (c) From around 16: 22:00 of the same month to around 3:00 of the same month, the victims continued to be able to participate in his body without being able to participate in it, and eventually, the victims did not receive food to the victim, so that the victim became unable to hold his body due to that reason.

In such a case, the Defendants had a duty to check without delay the state of the victim and take necessary minimum measures, such as providing food, and further provide assistance to medical institutions for medical treatment. Nevertheless, the Defendants did not take any measures but left the victim as they are, and only left the victim at the time of the wedding distribution, and thereby caused the death in the room located in the above church at around 30:0 of the same month.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to abandon the victim who needs assistance and caused death. Summary of the evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement concerning b00;

1. Investigation report (to hear by phone call from a autopsy);

1. Requests for appraisal;

1. A written autopsy;

1. Visual history photographs;

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of criminal facts;

Articles 275(1) and 271(1) of the Criminal Code

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Code

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the argument

① Although the Defendants laid the victim into a roof, etc., the Defendants themselves laid down a spambling of the victim to the extent that they are able to drive by drinking toilets, eating food, etc., and supplied some of the flusing food, etc.

Since it is not a crime of abandonment, there was no intention of abandonment, and ② there was no expectation that the victim would die due to this.

2. Determination

유기치사죄는 보호의무 있는 자가 노유 ( 老幼 ) · 질병 · 기타 사정으로 인하여 타인의 조력 없이는 자신의 생명 · 신체에 대한 위험을 스스로 극복할 수 없는 자 ( 요부조자 ) 를 보호 없는 상태에 둠으로 인하여 사망의 결과가 발생할 때 성립하는 범죄이다 .

According to each of the above evidence duly adopted in this court, the victim was suffering from severe mental disorder and it was impossible to make a normal judgment. Although the victim was able to work for the toilet to the extent that it was impossible for him/her to take food on his/her own, even if he/she was able to take food on his/her own because of food on his/her own, it was difficult to expect that he/she would take food on his/her own. On May 17, 2012, there was considerable doubt as to whether he/she was able to take food on his/her own at o'clock, and whether he/she was a health condition that can take food on his/her own. The defendant did not take food on a 3-day basis and did not take food together with the victim, and the victim was dead, and the victim did not take measures on his/her own because he/she did not take food on his/her own because he/she did not take food on his/her own, and the victim did not have any other part because he/she did not have been abandoned by the victim.

In addition, the victim assaulted the defendant Park O, who was his father before the clerical error in the church, committed a brupt to the extent that he should put his son together with the church, and subsequently, caused a lot of physical activities to cultivate his ability, such as strengthening his body. The result of the victim's death cannot be said to be a equitable day or ordinarily predicted by the general public, and thus, it is judged that there was a possibility of predicting the result of the death. Accordingly, the remaining arguments are not accepted.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment;

From 1 to 15 years of imprisonment; or

2. Determination of sentence;

In 208, the victim suffered from serious mental illness, such as depression, even though he/she received hospitalized treatment for six months after having been suffering from mental illness at the same time due to the harsh conduct of a senior soldier after entering the military in 2008. The Defendants have been able to do their best to protect the victim’s parents, such as attending a hospital, one Council member, and undergoing hospitalized treatment, etc. for the improvement of the victim’s social and social revitalization, and the response to the side effects of drinking drugs and suffering from hospitalization during the course of hospital treatment. As the victim’s symptoms led to the situation where the victim’s symptoms become more severe and serious assaults the Defendants, who are the parents, who are the parents of the victim, to leave the church as desired by the victim.

The Defendants had the duty to protect the victims who suffered from mental illness who are unable to make a normal judgment. The Defendants neglected their duty to protect the young young young people by neglecting their duty, resulting in the occurrence of a serious result of the death of the young. However, the Defendants seem to have not actively expressed the death of the young children, and have been suffering from the death of the deceased child due to severe self-defenses and balking. Although the result is serious, it is deemed that there is no penalty added to the death of the young young children who lost their consciousness for more than 20 years, it is deemed that there is no penalty added to the death of the young. Accordingly, the Defendants are sentenced to a sentence as ordered against the Defendants.

Judge Lee Jong-soo

Judges Jin Jinio

Judges Senior Jin-jin