I Became a Law School Genius – 56



I Became a Genius Law School Student Episode 56

“On January 13 2014 defendant Lee Eul-nam removed the life-sustaining treatment device from Man A who was in a state where he could not survive without it causing A’s death. “This is a serious crime that should not be committed by a person in the position of a medical professional dictating the dignified value of life through his or her own arbitrariness.”

I swallowed my saliva and elaborated.

“Therefore this prosecutor indicts defendant Lee Eul-nam… as an ‘accomplice’ to the crime of murder under Article 250 of the Criminal Act that is as an accessory to murder.”

Criminal Law Article 32 (Accomplice) A person who assists another’s crime shall be punished as an accessory.

To put it simply aiding and abetting is the act of helping or encouraging someone to easily commit a crime rather than the person who directly committed the crime.

Examples include encouraging and inciting someone to kill someone or obtaining a weapon and handing it over.

When a person goes beyond simple aiding and abetting to the point of ‘causing’ someone to commit a crime he or she is said to be an instigator.

This is easy to understand if you think about hiring a murderer.

“Accomplice?”

“Looking at what I just said wouldn’t it be right to just indict him as the principal offender of murder?”

The audience was in an uproar.

“He’s an accomplice.”

Jang Yong-Hwan asked.

“So you’re saying there is a separate criminal?”

“Yes.”

I nodded.

“Of course it is Kim Gap-dong the alienated son of A… who asked defendant Eul-nam Lee to eliminate him.”

“It’s strange.”

Jang Yong-hwan’s eyes narrowed.

“Do you properly understand the concept of abettor?”

“Of course.”

“In this case Kim Gap-dong never did anything directly. “I just urged the doctors at Hospital C including Lee Eul-nam to discharge A and make them stop providing life-sustaining treatment.”

A testing look is cast.

“Then wouldn’t it make sense to view Kim Gap-dong as an accomplice or instigator and Lee Eul-nam who participated directly in the process of discontinuing life-sustaining treatment as the principal offender?”

“We plan to prove it including that part.”

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

When he answered confidently the corners of Jang Yong-hwan’s mouth went up.

‘Yes this is correct.’

In fact from the prosecutor’s point of view if he wanted to see the end it would have been right to indict him as the main criminal of murder.

This is because accomplices receive lower sentences than the principal offender.

The one who killed him directly and the one who helped kill him are both bad guys but if we had to ask of course the former was bound to be the worse guy.

But what did Jang Yong-hwan say before this match started?

I was clearly told to come up with the ‘best’ argument.

In other words among the reasonable arguments that can be accepted choose the direction that gives the most punishment and develop it.

While they are greedy for the weight of the punishment they end up with a logical loophole in their argument which is a reversal of the point.

At least in my opinion in this case it is somewhat difficult to punish Lee Eul-nam as the principal criminal of murder.

“…We’ll see.”

He nodded naturally and turned his head towards Minhwan Gu. Now it was the defendant’s turn to give a full statement.

“The defendant. Do you admit the indictment?”

‘How will I get out?’

As it is the defendant must prove innocence in order to win.

However in this case not only I but the other party Koo Min-hwan was also subject to puzzling evaluation standards.

The vague evaluation criteria for presenting the best argument are a kind of constraint but at the same time they also open up the possibility of compromise.

What if you look at the case calmly and decide that it is impossible to get an acquittal? The defendant can also argue in a way that makes the sentence as light as possible.

‘I probably will.’

It is not impossible to claim that Lee Eul-nam is not guilty in this case.

As we already saw during the data analysis all you have to do is convince them that it is legal euthanasia.

However it is a controversial path and the probability of it being accepted is low.

The problem was posed to find a reasonable compromise but there was no reason to take such a gamble.

My judgment was that Koo Min-hwan who was especially obsessed with winning would not choose to take risks.

That’s why.

“…I do not acknowledge it.”

When I heard Gu Min-hwan’s declaration my mouth fell open.

“Defendant Lee Eul-nam is not guilty.”

‘what?’

I wasn’t the only one who was confused.

“innocence?”

“…You’re kidding right?”

Our team members had already analyzed the records and made various predictions.

“Isn’t it a bit dangerous to claim complete innocence in this situation?”

“Are you planning on fighting head-on?”

The audience watching also began to shake.

‘What is this plan?’

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

There was no way that someone as talented as Koo Min-hwan could not think of a way to advocate for legal euthanasia.

But at the same time you probably know that it’s not a very sure winning plan.

I glanced at Gu Min-hwan who was sitting in the defense table across from me.

“….”

But he had already returned to silence.

Gu Min-hwan who was examining the material he had picked up with inorganic eyes could not read any signs.

‘I’m going to be amazed.’

Did Koo Min-hwan really jump into gambling with low odds? If not is there something I missed?

But thinking about it didn’t mean I could come up with a sharp number.

Now that it was like this I had no choice but to face it.

“Then let’s begin the evidence investigation process.”

It was my turn to step forward.

“Respected Judge.”

I cleared my throat and stood up.

“I told you a little while ago that the defendant Lee Eul-nam is an accomplice who aided and abetted the murder.”

He casts a glance towards the judge Jang Yong-hwan and the audience.

“But for an accomplice to be established a principal must first be established. Therefore although he is not a defendant in this case we would like to first prove that Kim Gap-dong is the principal criminal of murder.”

It’s natural. Even if I give someone a knife it cannot be a crime if that person does not do anything bad.

In the end the guilt of the accomplice can only be discussed if it is revealed that the principal committed the crime.

‘That’s why Lee Eul-nam was left as a defendant.’

When there is only one defendant the criteria become simpler and it is easy to score.

However it would be unfortunate to create problems and issues for the two defendants and then throw away half of them.

Therefore Yong-hwan Jang chose his accomplice Eul-nam Lee as the defendant.

In any case if we are going to pay for his crimes we will also have to fight about Kim Gap-dong. It couldn’t have been a very shameful trick.

‘Well because I read that psychology I was able to be certain that Lee Eul-nam’s guilt was aiding and abetting murder.’

There is a reason for every choice the test taker makes.

If you start from there it becomes possible to discover the path to the answer through the eyes of someone who designed and created the problem rather than a test taker swimming on the ground.

Anyway that’s why I had to touch on Kim Gap-dong first.

Having laid down the premise I continued the explanation.

“In order to prove Kim Gap-dong’s murder charge two facts must be shown.”

one. I raised my index finger and waved it.

“The discontinuation of life-sustaining treatment in this case which occurred at the request of Kim Gap-dong is murder and does not fall under legal euthanasia.”

two. This time extend your middle finger.

“Kim Gap-dong is the main culprit of that murder.”

I unfolded two pieces of paper and said “Let’s take a look at them one by one.”

“First the issue is whether the act of discontinuing life-sustaining treatment in this case constitutes ‘legal euthanasia.’ In the current Korean legal system there is something called the ‘Act on Hospice Palliative Care and Decisions on Life-Sustaining Treatment for Patients in the Dying Process.’ “It is an abbreviated name for the Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Act.”

“Oh I heard that.”

“me too. “I remember preparing for the rolling interview when I was entering college.”

“The pros and cons of euthanasia are a common topic in interviews. “It was even included in the academy’s textbooks.”

He nodded towards the loud audience.

“The Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Act stipulates that if a patient is in an irreversible critical condition the patient’s family can request discontinuation of life sustaining treatment.”

“Then you can follow that law?”

“I guess we just need to consider whether it is an irrecoverable condition.”

The audience was amazed that the problem had been simplified but I denied this.

“Unfortunately the Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Act cannot be applied in this case.”

He shook his head and explained.

“The date of enactment of the Life Sustaining Treatment Decision Act was February 3 2016. However this incident occurred in 2014. Looking at the records the indictment was also filed in 2014. In other words… we are now standing in court in 2014.”

Such laws did not exist at the time. Therefore it is impossible to make a judgment based on the life-sustaining treatment decision law.

When I came to that conclusion the reaction came back.

“Did you see the date on this?”

“Of course I have to see it. Don’t you remember that during last year’s final exam the title trust issue came up before the real estate real name law was revised? “At that time all the students who did not look at the date and wrote their answers based on the revised standard got 100 points.”

“Still it’s something that’s easy to miss. Since the real estate name law is a famous past issue I habitually check it but it is commendable that I checked it thoroughly even while looking up an unfamiliar law that I had not learned about. “The basics are good.”

“They said you were at the top of the class in your freshman year but that definitely isn’t your form.”

Even the second-year seniors who were hostile to me were admiring me in their own way. We must continue this atmosphere.

“Based on the time of the incident the basis for allowing withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment must be found in precedents.”

“Supreme Court 2009Da17417 Precedent.”

Hanseol answered in a sonorous voice.

“If ‘after reaching the stage of irreversible death the patient is recognized as exercising the right to self-determination based on human dignity and value and the right to pursue happiness’ euthanasia that is cessation of meaningless life-sustaining treatment is permitted.”

In other words she elaborated.

“There are two criteria that must be met. In this case has A reached the stage of irreversible death and is it recognized as having exercised the right to self-determination?”

Since this was an issue that had already been discussed once the distribution of roles was smooth and skillful.

Now that Hanseol had created the frame it was my turn to present evidence proving that each condition was not met.

It was then.

match. match.

A sudden applause interrupted my speech.

“Great.”

The identity of Sori was Gu Min-hwan.