Episode 33

My gaze drifted towards the bag placed under my desk.

Inside the bulging black bag were my 'Criminal Law Summary' and 'Knots of Civil Law,' which I always carried with me as if they were a part of my body.

My treasures, created by cutting out what needed to be cut and adding what needed to be added.

Of course, these also had many multiple-choice questions from past exams marked on them.

'Because that's what true single-volume consolidation is all about.'

Case-based questions were the core of law exams, but the scores from multiple-choice questions were also not something that could be ignored.

I had been reviewing these books every day without rest, constantly imprinting the multiple-choice questions into my eyes.

Even when I had ambiguous pockets of free time, like when I went to the main house last time, I would take out a multiple-choice question book and often solve problems to check my knowledge.

A crazy person who was always prepared for multiple-choice exams?

That was me.

Of course, I wasn't without competitors.

"Hey. What do we do about this?"

"What can we do? We just have to do our best as usual."

"No, that's something only you can say..."

Shin Seo-joon, who didn't seem too flustered, although he was slightly disinclined.

In this scene of the original story, this guy showed a correct answer rate of over 80% with just his basic skills, even without preparing for multiple-choice questions.

The time it took him to solve all of the problems was also the fastest at one and a half hours.

Considering that there were a total of 60 questions to solve today, that was a considerable speed.

Indeed, the honor of being the top of the police academy wasn't something you could win by gambling.

Proof of achievement that was made through learning and competing in criminal law as a major in a place where most of the elites had gathered.

Regardless of my personal preferences for Shin Seo-joon as a person, his skills were real.

'And, there's no need to look for competitors far away.'

"Hmm. It's a relief that it's multiple choice, though."

"...Why is that a relief?"

"I'm confident in my memorization."

Han Seol's study method was to cram everything within the range into her head. She didn't care about pacing or tricks.

Her motto was that if there was a lot of material, she just had to sit there longer, and if it was difficult, she just had to focus more deeply.

It was something that would be fortunate if a normal person didn't get sick from trying to follow.

But thanks to the effort she had put in throughout her life, Han Seol's memorization ability far exceeded that of ordinary people.

If it was purely about multiple-choice skills, she was actually half a step ahead of Shin Seo-joon.

'In fact, even in the preliminary first evaluation, she solved multiple-choice questions faster and got more right than Shin Seo-joon.'

She struggled a bit with Jang Yong-hwan's multiple-choice questions, which had some rather unusual types mixed in, but even so, she firmly held onto second place.

To solve multiple-choice questions in the same classroom as these monsters.

This was, really.

'Amazing?'

It was an opportunity to test how far my level had risen to a competitive position before the midterm exam, which was the main game.

Regardless of this and that, the current situation was a very favorable condition for me.

After all, I knew that this incident would happen around this time, and I was prepared in advance.

On the other hand, even if they were outstanding, they were not prepared specifically for the exam.

If I couldn't achieve overwhelming results even under such favorable conditions, I would obviously not be able to win in the midterm exam, where everyone would be fully prepared.

At least today, I had to be the best.

"Then, I'll be leaving now. I hope you all can do your best."

Jang Yong-hwan left the exam supervision to the teaching assistants and left.

The door closed, and the teaching assistants instructed the start of the exam.

"Let's begin. You may start solving the problems."

There was no time to waste. Let's start right away.

[Question 1. Which of the following explanations regarding the types of crimes is incorrect? (If there is a dispute, it shall be based on precedents)]

① The crime of dereliction of duty cannot be said to be an instant crime, as long as there is a fact that corresponds to the constituent elements of the crime by not performing the duty of action, and as long as the illegal state of inaction continues, the punishable illegal state continues to exist.

② The crime of intimidation is a crime of endangerment that has the freedom of decision-making as its legally protected interest, and even if the notification of harm has reached the other party, but the other party has not perceived it or has not recognized the meaning of the notified harm, it should still be seen that the crime of intimidation has reached the stage of completion.

③ The crime of abuse is a state crime or an instant crime that is completed at the same time as an act of causing physical pain or mentally discriminating against a person under one's protection or supervision.

'The first question isn't easy.'

Perhaps considering that it was a sudden exam, the questions were structured as 3-choice questions instead of the usual 5-choice questions.

From the perspective of the solver, it was a blessing since there were fewer things to be confused about.

But that didn't mean that the content that each choice was asking was easy.

'Types of crimes, huh.'

Confusing terms were popping up everywhere in the choices.

Instant crime, state crime, endangerment crime, and so on. If someone who didn't know saw it, they would probably feel nauseous, but in fact, they weren't that difficult of concepts.

First of all, all crimes can be divided into crimes of infringement and crimes of endangerment based on the 'degree of infringement of interests'.

Crimes of infringement are types of crimes where a crime is only considered to have been committed when a realistic infringement occurs.

The crime of murder is only established when a person is killed, and the crime of assault is only established when a person is injured.

On the other hand, crimes of endangerment are types of crimes where a crime is considered to have been committed as soon as a dangerous state occurs.

For example, the crime of obstruction of business is like that. Let's say that I tried to steal customers from a competing store by spreading bad rumors.

If the crime of obstruction of business was a crime of infringement, I would only be punished if I actually stole customers from the competing store.

On the other hand, if it was a crime of endangerment, it would be possible to consider that I committed the crime of obstruction of business at the point when I spread the rumors, since 'the danger of customers disappearing' had occurred.

In short, the conditions for punishment are a bit more lenient.

Now, let's look at choice 2.

'It's true that the crime of intimidation is a crime of endangerment. Once an act of intimidation has occurred, as long as there is a possibility that the other party will feel fear, the crime of intimidation is established regardless of whether they actually felt fear.'

From that point of view, it seemed like a correct choice at first glance.

It was a choice that asked whether you accurately understood the meaning of the concept of endangerment crimes and the type of crime that intimidation was.

But this damn professor had set a trap one step further.

'Wait, the other party didn't perceive it or recognize the meaning of the harm?'

If I had intimidated them, but the other party hadn't heard my words or hadn't understood what I meant even if they had heard them.

In that case, there wouldn't even be a 'possibility of feeling fear'.

If the danger itself hadn't been caused, it couldn't be said that a crime had been established.

It could be evaluated as a choice that was made incorrect by touching a single expression in a petty way, but in a way, it was also a question that filtered out people who had simply memorized the definition of endangerment crimes mechanically.

You had to accurately understand the meaning of a dangerous state and be able to think to pinpoint the incorrect answer.

'Okay. 2 is wrong.'

Since the question was asking us to choose the incorrect one, I could just mark 2 and move on.

If I was in the stage of studying by myself, I would have pondered over the meanings of 1 and 3, and the meanings of continuing crimes and instant crimes, but I didn't have the time to do that this time.

'Besides, they're all choices I've seen in past exams.'

Choices 1 and 3 were both choices that had verbatim transferred the conclusions of precedents.

Since they were things I had read countless times, I could immediately judge them as soon as I saw them.

Moving on to the next question.

[Question 2. Choose the correct explanation regarding the following case (If there is a dispute, it shall be based on precedents).]

• At 21:40, A was driving his car with his fiancé in the passenger seat. At that time, B, who was drunk and waiting for a taxi on the sidewalk, mistook A's car for a taxi and stepped onto the road to stop A's car and try to get in.

• When A blocked B, B grabbed A's pants and pulled, tearing A's pants, and then pulled A and fell down with A. A restrained B by holding down B's hands until the police officers who were dispatched by A's fiancé arrived at the scene, for about 3 minutes.

'...What is this again?'

In Civil Law multiple-choice questions, it was common to give a case and ask us to make a judgement, but in Criminal Law, most of the questions asked us to judge the correctness of the choices, or choose all the correct ones from 'a, b, c, d, e'.

This type of question was not a style that I had seen often.

But there was no need to be flustered. Rather, these kinds of questions were often easier to solve than other questions if you thought about them a little.

'Considering the range of progress, this is probably a question about self-defense.'

B was doing acts that looked illegal at a glance, such as tearing A's pants or knocking him down.

The question was whether A's act of restraining B at this time could be recognized as self-defense.

'What are the requirements for self-defense to be recognized?'

• Article 21 of the Criminal Act (Self-Defense) ① An act done to defend oneself or another person's legally protected interest from an imminent unlawful infringement shall not be punishable.

If you recall the article on self-defense, you can easily extract the requirements.

First, an imminent unlawful infringement. The infringement must be happening right now, and it is no longer recognized when the person is already out of danger.

And an act done 'to defend', that is, the intention to defend and the act of defense resulting from that.

It had to be an act that was done with the intention of protecting oneself or someone else.

You couldn't recognize self-defense even in a situation like when someone just hit a passerby for fun, but it turned out that the passerby was an assassin who had hidden a weapon to kill them.

The last requirement was not written in the article, but it was required by precedents.

It was 'proportionality'. To go into details, it would get a bit complicated, but in short, it meant that you couldn't blow off someone's head with a pistol just because you were in danger of being hit with bare fists.

The act of defense had to be done in a way that was generally acceptable, appropriate, and reasonable.

It was the requirement that was the number one reason why self-defense was denied in reality.

News articles such as a mother who strangled a robber to death to save her child not being recognized for self-defense.

It was a story that you could come across fairly easily.

Of course, it wasn't a legal interpretation that I was very fond of.

But regardless of whether it was right or wrong, as long as it was written in the question that 'if there is a dispute, it shall be based on precedents,' I had to choose a choice that followed the position of the precedents.

'Okay. Let's focus on the question now.'

I shifted my gaze to the choices.

① In the above case, the attack and defense acts occur consecutively, and since A's defense act has a dual nature that is also an attack act, it is difficult to view only A's act as corresponding to self-defense.

② The fact that A's act corresponds to self-defense or a justifiable act must be proven by A, but the proof does not have to be done by strict evidence with such a probative value that it causes the judge to have a conviction without any room for doubt.

③ If B is indicted for assault and claims in the trial that he does not remember anything because he was completely drunk at the time of the crime, and at the same time claims that he was in a state of mental incapacity, the court must state its judgement on that when rendering a guilty verdict against B.

'This is crazy!'

Choice 1 wasn't that difficult. In terms of legal principles, self-defense could include not only a simple defensive act but also an active offensive act.

It was only when the offensive act was 'too severe' and lost its proportionality that self-defense was denied.

The problem was choices 2 and 3.

'This is a litigation law issue!'

The two choices blatantly included content that was handled in the Criminal Procedure Law.

Of course, since it was connected to the process of discussing self-defense, it wasn't completely without cause, but the fact that I hadn't learned it was the problem.

With the knowledge that I had learned at a first-year level, I could never solve it.

It was only natural that someone wouldn't know what they were being asked if they weren't someone like Shin Seo-joon who had already finished studying Criminal Procedure Law.

However.

'It's 3, this one.'

I was the exception.

I hadn't yet completed my review system for litigation law itself, but in my 'Criminal Law Summary,' these choices were connected and added to the self-defense page.

That was because they had appeared on the Bar Exam before.

I remembered that they had also appeared together in a question that dealt with self-defense back then.

We took exams that were divided according to the range of progress, but the Bar Exam wasn't like that.

If the topic was related, it was very common for Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure Law, and Civil Law and Civil Procedure Law to be entangled in a single question.

Perhaps Jang Yong-hwan was ordering us to get used to such situations.

'Anyway, he's a nasty human being.'

But that was why it was more interesting.

'This is 3. You're 2. No, is this also a trap pretending to be a verbatim copy of the precedent conclusion?'

After that, I continued to solve the problems.

Each and every question was plastered with traps that you could fall into with just a slight misstep, but they couldn't deceive my eyes.

The hand that was checking the answers gained momentum. I flipped through the pages without hesitation.

Some might fear exams, but on the contrary, these moments were the most enjoyable highlights in the process of studying law.

Even for me, the process of reading through thick law books wasn't easy.

I couldn't just skim through it like a novel, and the work of accurately absorbing the meaning of each and every character and memorizing it until I could reproduce it was tiring, difficult, and painful.

But if you properly endured the time of hardship, a reward would come.

A moment of confirmation. A moment of proof.

A glorious stage where I could confidently spread my chest and say that the time I had spent hadn't been worthless, that it had become my blood and flesh, and that I had taken a step forward.

That was what an exam was.

"Hoo..."

Finally, after marking the answer to the last question, I took a breath that I had been holding back.

I was so focused that my back was drenched in sweat, and red marks were left on my fingers from gripping the pen so hard.

Engulfed in a satisfying sense of exhaustion, I picked up the exam paper and walked forward, standing in front of the teaching assistant.

"Are you okay?"

"Huh? What."

The teaching assistant asked with a worried voice as I handed over the exam paper.

Did I look that sick? I was just a bit tired from focusing, it wasn't like my physical condition had gotten worse.

But I soon realized that I had misunderstood something.

"As the professor said, the results of this multiple-choice exam will be reflected in your grades. You can't just solve it carelessly and submit it."

"....?"

'Why is this guy acting like this?'

There was no way that I would solve the exam carelessly and submit it.

As I stared at him with that look, the teaching assistant scratched the back of his head, as if he was flustered.

"No, that... Never mind. Please give it here."

By now, not only the teaching assistant, but all of the students who were solving the questions were looking at me.

Some looked dumbfounded, others looked like they couldn't believe it.

I wondered why all of these people were acting like this, and only then did I follow the teaching assistant's gaze and look at the digital clock on the table.

[14:50]

Less than 50 minutes had passed since the start.

...It was an overwhelming first place.