Conflicts among apartment representatives over management issues led to a physical altercation that resulted in one man's death. The man who struck the victim was convicted of assault but was acquitted of the charge of assault causing death.
On July 20, the Suwon High Court's Criminal Division 1 dismissed appeals from both the prosecution and the defendant, a man in his 40s identified as A. The court upheld the lower court's ruling, which found A guilty of assault and sentenced him to 10 months in prison, suspended for two years, along with 80 hours of community service.
The incident occurred on February 28, 2024, at around 7:40 p.m. in a meeting room of an apartment complex in Pyeongtaek, Gyeonggi Province. A, who was an apartment representative, clashed with a man in his 50s, identified as B, during the meeting.
After stepping outside, B suggested drafting a written agreement stating he would not contest the fight. A agreed, and subsequently struck B multiple times in the face and kicked him in the head. Although bystanders intervened to stop the fight, B collapsed shortly afterward and was taken to the hospital, where he later died.
The National Forensic Service considered acute cardiac arrest as a possible cause of death. They noted that the circumstances surrounding the fight could not entirely rule out the possibility that the assault contributed to B's death. Based on this, the prosecution charged A with assault causing death.
However, the court determined that it was difficult to hold A responsible for the death separate from the assault. The charge of assault causing death applies when a person intentionally commits an assault that unexpectedly results in a serious death. There must be a causal relationship between the assault and the death, and the defendant must have been able to foresee the possibility of death in that situation.
The Supreme Court has also ruled that for the charge of assault causing death to be established, foreseeability of death is necessary. If the defendant could not have anticipated it at all, even if a conditional causal relationship between the assault and death is recognized, they cannot be punished for assault causing death.
The first trial court considered that B had proposed the written agreement before the physical confrontation escalated. It also found no evidence that B complained of chest pain during the assault or that A was aware of B's critical condition. In this context, the court concluded that it would have been difficult for A to foresee that his actions would lead to B's death.
The appellate court reached the same conclusion. The judges noted that when A kicked B in the face, he was being restrained by others, making it unlikely he could have delivered a full-force blow. The forensic results also indicated that the level of violence was not definitively life-threatening.
While the written agreement did not absolve A of all criminal responsibility, the law generally allows for non-punishment if the victim consents to the infringement of their legal rights, provided that such consent does not violate social norms. Consent from the victim does not automatically permit actions that seriously harm life or bodily integrity.
* This article has been translated by AI.
Copyright ⓒ Aju Press All rights reserved.