I Became a Law School Genius – 54



I Became a Genius Law School Student Episode 54

“We hope for the prosecutor’s side.”

“The defendant.”

The process of deciding which position each team will take.

As previously discussed we chose a prosecutor and Koo Min-hwan stepped forward to defend the defendant.

‘It’s unexpected… isn’t it?’

It’s different from what I thought but it wasn’t such a strange choice for Gu Min-hwan.

Koo Min-hwan is a person who made a living through investigative work.

I have specialized in collecting and organizing evidence and making reports to prosecutors saying ‘Please indict this guy.’

Therefore choosing a lawyer who can actively argue about various issues was a way to utilize one’s strengths.

In fact in the legal world lawyers who have graduated from the police academy and have experience leading investigation teams are being scouted here and there at high prices.

These were experts who could delve into the recognition of facts in more detail than anyone else starting with procedural issues.

What I am doing now is like a rehearsal.

‘For me it’s better. ‘Because I was planning to become a prosecutor from the beginning.’

There was quite a bit of evidence that the defense could use but the prosecution was still better in this case.

“Then Park Yoo-seung Han Seol and Lee Ha-ru’s team are on the prosecutor’s side. Goo Min-hwan Lee Yoon-ah and Jo Hyun-min’s team are on the defense side. “Do you have any objections?”

After distributing positions we returned to the team waiting room.

Now it was time to put together a written statement and argument in earnest.

“Let’s look at the first issue first.”

I slumped down in my seat.

“If it’s the first one… it’s a question of whether euthanasia in this case is ‘permissible’ that is legal euthanasia right?”

“that’s right.”

I nodded to Hanseol’s question.

The best verdict a defense attorney can obtain in a criminal trial is not guilty.

In other words it is the worst outcome that can come from our perspective.

There are only two ways for a defendant to be found not guilty in a criminal trial in Korea.

Get notified for updates: https://discord.gg/93rmBjgP6B

Either the crime was never committed in the first place or the proof was insufficient.

Criminal Procedure Act Article 325 (Judgment of Not Guilty) If the defendant’s case does not constitute a crime or there is no proof of the crime the defendant must be declared not guilty.

Most not guilty verdicts handed down in real trials fall under the latter part of Article 325 that is lack of proof.

Prosecutors in the Republic of Korea are an extremely capable group.

Unless there is a case where the guilt seems clear enough to be arrested they are not even prosecuted in the first place.

That is why the conviction rate in criminal trials reaches 967%.

Moreover it is extremely rare for a case that is not even a crime to be prosecuted and brought to court in the first place.

However the story is different in cases where like euthanasia whether it is a ‘sin’ or an object of judgment is itself the subject of sharp debate.

“Hanseol. What are the standards for permissible euthanasia set forth in the Supreme Court precedent?”

“Um so… one. ‘The patient has reached the stage of irreversible death.’ two. ‘It must be a case where it is recognized that the right to self-determination is exercised based on human dignity and value and the right to pursue happiness.’”

indeed. I nudged him and the answer came out immediately as if I had left it to him.

“however.”

Haru suddenly asked.

“What does it mean to be ‘recognized as exercising the right to self-determination’?”

“Ah the words are a bit vague aren’t they?”

“It’s vague and nonsense. Patients receiving life-sustaining treatment are most likely in an unconscious vegetative or brain-dead state so what does it mean for such patients to ‘exercise’ their right to self-determination?”

Lee Ha-ru’s point was valid.

This precedent really makes the right statement.

All humans have the right to pursue happiness.

You also have the right to self-determination to freely design your own life.

Therefore in a situation where life is meaninglessly prolonged without any possibility of recovery let us recognize the patient’s right to give up life for the sake of the dignity of life.

The problem is that it only sounds right.

If you think about it a little you can quickly feel strange.

How on earth can a person lying unconscious on a hospital bed exercise such rights and make ‘decisions’ about his or her life?

“That’s why precedent uses the concept of the so-called ‘rejected doctor.’”

Patient’s age. Attitude toward everyday life. A story told to people around me. Religious beliefs or values. How you react when you see someone in a similar situation etc.

If taking all the circumstances into consideration it can be assumed that ‘this person would not want to continue receiving life-sustaining treatment in this situation’ the patient is considered to have exercised his or her right to self-determination.

This was also the case in the case of Grandmother Kim which is the source of this issue.

Grandmother Kim has repeatedly said that if her death approaches she wants to leave this world clean instead of having to endure life-saving pressure on those around her and that if she ends up lying in a hospital bed she does not want to be treated with machines to sustain her life.

Even when her husband died several years ago her refusal to undergo a tracheotomy which would have saved his life for a few more days was also recognized as strong evidence.

The Supreme Court concluded that Grandmother Kim’s consistent values ​​would have been toward a dignified death rather than a hopelessly painful prolongation of life.

“Umm….”

After hearing my explanation Lee Haru made an expression as if he knew or did not know.

“Is it so easy to estimate the human mind? “Even if you say that in normal times when your own death approaches you might be so scared that you might want to live.”

“That also makes sense.”

I nodded.

“So the burden on the judge’s shoulders is heavy.”

Join our discord and ping me to update more chapters. Discord: https://discord.gg/93rmBjgP6B

As long as humans judge humans it is impossible to reduce the possibility of error to zero.

Because we are not omnipotent gods.

However we can at least make the results acceptable by minimizing errors and ensuring that all procedures are carried out fairly.

This allows one case to be tried three times from the first trial to the second trial and the third trial before the Supreme Court.

Qualifications are limited and managed so that only those who have been selected educated and experienced through an extremely rigorous process can sit on the judge’s bench.

All of them are institutional mechanisms to compensate for judgment by imperfect humans.

Naturally judges who are at the forefront of this process inevitably bear a heavier responsibility than anyone else.

“Well the basic story is okay.”

I clapped my hands to get their attention.

“Anyway Iharu’s point is something that can be used from our perspective as well. Let’s see about this incident. Since they have to come to the conclusion that euthanasia is legal aren’t they going to argue that ‘A can be assumed to have no intention of receiving life-sustaining treatment?’ Then we gather contrary evidence.”

With those words as a cue we began to search through the records submitted as evidence again.

“Hmm… Looking at things like this it looks like Mr. A didn’t have any regrets in life.”

Hanseol pulled out a document and handed it to me.

[Testimony of Mr. C Kim Gap-dong’s wife]

My father was already a person who could not die.

When he was sober he often said things like ‘I am a human being who deserves to die. I am an old part discarded after serving its purpose in society.’ And even when he was drunk he would deliberately pick fights with bullies or go to dangerous places.

Even when he was drunk and assaulted my wife he made abusive remarks like ‘If I die anyway aren’t you just taking me here to get the insurance money and inheritance? Are you kidding me? Kill me now.’ (Omitted)….

“You said Mr. A was an old man who lost his job and became unemployed. “I don’t know if the setting is that he despaired of the fact that no one needed him anymore.”

“Sorry. Instead I wasted my time by only looking for evidence to strengthen the other side’s argument.”

“no. Because it’s important to know the enemy’s weapons. “Good job finding it.”

If Koo Min-hwan wants to assert the legality of euthanasia he will definitely bring this testimony. Because it will be strong evidence that A does not want to live any longer.

However it was not completely proven.

“It seems clear that A feels skeptical about life… but can we be sure that this will necessarily lead to doctors refusing life-sustaining treatment?”

Let’s think about what Haru said earlier.

Even if you are a person who has always expressed a negative opinion about life-sustaining treatment it has been said that when death approaches you may want to receive treatment out of fear.

It was a meaningful point.

In fact the reason the doctor’s presumption could be accepted in Grandma Kim’s case was because there were two important circumstantial evidences.

One is that she was a very devout Christian and had strong values ​​about death.

Another thing was that she refused tracheostomy which is similar to life-sustaining treatment in the death of her husband who was already the most precious person to her.

It is not easy to assume a patient’s intentions based on just a few words they said while they were alive.

If there were no such circumstances in the grandmother Kim case the discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment would not have been recognized as an “exercise of the right to self-determination.”

Moreover simply saying that you were feeling skeptical about life may be a reference but it is not sufficient proof.

In the first place A is a person who says that he deserves to die but he does not have the courage to make a direct attempt to actually die.

If the word ‘courage’ is inappropriate you can change it to say ‘willing to die’ is not that sincere.

The important thing is that it is difficult to be sure that A wanted to discontinue life-sustaining treatment.

“The possibility of recovery is also a problem.”

I rummaged through a pile of papers and pulled out a document.

“Oh that’s it.”

“Remember? “It’s the doctor’s opinion I saw earlier.”

[Statement of Opinion]

[K hospital C medical record appraiser]

…(omitted)… Although the patient is breathing spontaneously considering the unevenness of the cerebral cortex and the damaged state of the cerebellum it is reasonable to believe that the possibility of regaining consciousness is only about 20%…(omitted)… )…

‘What doctor in the world writes sentences like this?’

The sentences explaining the symptoms in the first part of this were not like that but the conclusion of this opinion was written in a tone that was clearly rewritten by a legal professional.

‘~~’ ‘substantial’ etc. were typically expressions frequently used in precedents and legal documents.

If it was rewritten it means that it was necessary.

“In Grandma Kim’s case what percentage was recognized as irreversible?”

“I’ll look into it for a moment… Looking at the case law and the facts the attending doctor said there was less than a 5% chance of regaining consciousness and the emotional doctors said there was almost no chance of recovery and the state was close to brain death.”

“also.”

20% is too high a figure to believe that we will never be able to survive.

To put it bluntly in the case of online game lottery aren’t there people who spend hundreds or tens of millions of won saying that it is worth trying even if the probability is much lower than that say 2% or 3%?

It is a major decision that takes a person’s life.

When considering the conditions for justifying euthanasia the courts are stricter and more conservative than you might imagine.

Without any room for argument no one will acknowledge the legitimacy of this unless they say “I can’t live this person would rather die.”

“Okay we can rule out the possibility of being found not guilty through legal euthanasia.”

I breathed a sigh of relief.

If euthanasia cannot be justified it is a clear crime.

What remains is the task of determining the type and form of the crime and concocting a solid argument to support it.

“But.”

At that time Lee Ha-ru who had been burying her head in her laptop instead of documents suddenly raised her hand.

“What is this?”