beta
Text
1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff C, D, and E, KRW 31,59,034, and KRW 2,000,000 and each of the above amounts to Plaintiff A, respectively.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff C, D, and E are children of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the Plaintiff is the mother of the deceased.
B. On September 27, 201, at around 00:25, the Defendant boarded a G taxi operated by the Deceased on the roads in front of the Gangnamnam Station in Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and caused the Deceased to face a part of the right side of the Deceased by drinking the Deceased’s talking that the Deceased would get off from the taxi because he was unable to properly talk about the destination due to alcohol, and continued to get off the taxi, and caused the Deceased, who was trying to display his hand on his hand, to be faced with the back head part of the right side part of the public telephone boxes.
(hereinafter “instant accident.” As a result, the Deceased suffered from an injury from an insular fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluorial fluoral, and caused the death of the deceased due to an insular fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral fluorial fluoral flu
C. The Defendant was indicted as a crime of serious injury on the instant accident, and was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gohap1489 in the Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da1489, August 28, 2012. The Defendant and the Prosecutor appealeded the said judgment as Seoul High Court Decision 2012No291, and the Defendant’s indictment against the Defendant was changed to the death resulting from bodily injury on September 17, 2012.
In the above appellate case, the defendant argued that there was no causation between the defendant's act and the deceased's death, and that there was no possibility of the death, but the above court rejected the defendant's assertion and sentenced the defendant to one year and six months by recognizing the defendant's crime of bodily injury. The defendant appealed against this, but the above judgment became final and conclusive as it was by dismissal of the appeal on April 11, 2013
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 12, 13, 14, 20 (including branch numbers), and Eul.