Episode 54

"We would like to take the prosecution side."

"The defense side."

The procedure for deciding which side each team would take.

As we had discussed beforehand, we chose the prosecution, and Gu Min-hwan stepped forward to defend the defendant.

'Unexpected... well, not really.'

It was different from what I had been expecting, but for Gu Min-hwan, it wasn't a very strange choice.

Gu Min-hwan was someone who had made a living in investigation work.

He was a specialist in collecting and organizing evidence, and then sending reports to the prosecutor saying, "Please indict this guy."

Therefore, choosing the defense side, where he could actively find fault with various things, was a method that would allow him to utilize his strengths even more.

In fact, in the legal world, lawyers who had graduated from the police academy and had experience leading investigation teams were being scouted everywhere for high salaries.

They were experts who could delve into procedural issues and the recognition of factual relationships more meticulously than anyone else.

What they were doing now was no different from a practice run.

'It's better for me, though. I was planning to be on the prosecution side from the start.'

There were quite a few things that could be used by the defense, but even so, the prosecution side was better in this case.

"Then, the team of Park Yoo-seung, Han Seol, and Lee Ha-roo will be the prosecution, and the team of Gu Min-hwan, Lee Yoon-ah, and Jo Hyun-min will be the defense. Any objections?"

After the positions had been distributed, we returned to our team waiting room.

Now it was time to start squeezing out our written arguments and statements in earnest.

"Let's start with the first issue."

I plopped down onto the chair.

"If it's the first issue... then it's the problem of whether or not the euthanasia in this case is 'permissible', meaning if it's legal, right?"

"That's right."

I nodded in response to Han Seol's question.

The best verdict that a defense lawyer could obtain in a criminal trial was a not guilty verdict.

In other words, it was also the worst possible outcome for us.

In a criminal trial in Korea, there were only two ways for the defendant to be found not guilty.

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

Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act (Verdict of Not Guilty): When a case is not a crime, or when there is no proof of the facts of the crime, a verdict of not guilty must be declared.

In most of the not guilty verdicts that were given in real trials, the latter clause of Article 325, which was about the lack of proof, was the reason.

The prosecutors of Korea were a highly competent group.

They wouldn't even indict a case unless it was obvious that the defendant was guilty enough to be put away.

That was why the guilty verdict rate in criminal trials was as high as 96.7%.

Therefore, it was extremely rare for a case that wasn't even a crime in the first place to be indicted and brought to trial.

However, when it came to cases like euthanasia, where whether or not it was a 'crime' or even an object of judgment was a fiercely debated topic, things were different.

"Han Seol. What are the standards for permissible euthanasia that were established in the Supreme Court precedents?"

"Uhm, let's see... one. The patient must be 'in an irreversible stage of death'. Two. It has to be a case where they are 'recognized as exercising their right to self-determination based on their human dignity, value, and right to pursue happiness'."

As expected. As if she had been waiting for the question, the answer immediately popped out.

"But."

Lee Ha-roo suddenly asked.

"What does it mean to be 'recognized as exercising their right to self-determination'?"

"Ah, that's a bit ambiguous, right?"

"It's not just ambiguous, it's nonsense. A patient who is receiving life-sustaining treatment is most likely a vegetable or in a brain-dead state, so how is such a patient going to 'exercise' their right to self-determination?"

Lee Ha-roo's point was valid.

This precedent was just stating what was right.

All humans had the right to pursue happiness.

They also had the right to self-determination, where they could freely design their own lives.

Therefore, in a situation where a person's life was being meaninglessly extended with life-sustaining treatment, without any possibility of recovery, they should acknowledge the patient's right to give up their life for the sake of their dignity.

The problem was that it was just a statement that sounded right.

If you thought about it even a little, you could quickly realize that it was strange.

How could a person who was unconscious and lying on a hospital bed exercise such a right and make a 'decision' about their life?

"That's why the precedent uses the concept of so-called 'inferred intent'."

The patient's age. Their attitude towards life in their daily life. The things they had said to the people around them. Their religious beliefs and values. Their reactions when they had seen someone in a similar situation.

By comprehensively considering all sorts of circumstances, if they could infer that 'this person would not want to continue life-sustaining treatment in this situation', then they would consider the patient to have exercised their right to self-determination.

That was also the case in the Grandma Kim case, which was the original case for this problem.

Grandma Kim had repeatedly stated that if her death was approaching, she would rather leave this world cleanly instead of burdening the people around her, and that if she was ever bedridden, she wouldn't want treatment that would keep her alive with machines.

The fact that she had refused a tracheotomy, which could have extended her husband's life by a few days, was also acknowledged as strong evidence.

The Supreme Court had concluded that Grandma Kim's consistent values were directed towards a dignified death, rather than the extension of a life that was only painful and without hope.

"Uhm..."

After hearing my explanation, Lee Ha-roo made an expression that was difficult to read.

"Is it really that easy to infer a person's heart like that? Even if they said that in their daily life, they might be scared and want to live when their death is actually approaching."

"That's also a valid point."

I nodded.

"That's why the burden on the judge's shoulders is so heavy."

As long as humans were judging other humans, it was impossible to reduce the possibility of error to zero.

We weren't omniscient gods, after all.

But we could at least minimize errors and ensure that all procedures were fair, so that the results were acceptable.

The fact that a single case could be tried three times, from the first trial, to the second trial, and then all the way to the Supreme Court for the third trial.

The fact that only those who had passed a rigorous selection process, had been educated, and had gained experience could sit in the judge's seat.

All of that was a systematic measure to supplement the judgment of imperfect humans.

Naturally, the judges who were standing at the forefront of all of that had no choice but to bear a heavier responsibility than anyone else.

"Well, that's the theory, anyway."

I clapped my hands to get their attention.

"Anyway, Lee Ha-roo's point is also something that we can use. Let's look at this case. The other side will have to conclude that euthanasia is legal, so they'll argue that 'A can be inferred to have not wanted to continue life-sustaining treatment', right? So, we just have to collect evidence that goes against that."

With those words as a signal, we began to search through the records that had been submitted as evidence once again.

"Hmm... if we only look at these things, it does seem like Mr. A didn't have much attachment to life."

Han Seol picked up a piece of paper and handed it to me.

[Testimony of C, Kim Gap-dong's Wife]

My father-in-law was already someone who was living without being able to die.

He often said when he was sober that 'I'm a human who should be dead, a worn-out part that has been discarded after being used by society', and when he was drunk, he would pick fights with delinquents on purpose or go to dangerous places.

Even when he was drunk and assaulting my husband and me, he would spew out curses like, 'Aren't you just keeping me alive so you can get my insurance money and inheritance? Do you think I'm a joke? Just kill me now'... (omitted)...

"Mr. A was an elderly man who had lost his job and become unemployed. Maybe he was set up to be someone who was despairing over the fact that there was no one who needed him anymore."

"I'm sorry. I just wasted time by finding evidence that only strengthens the other side's argument."

"No. It's also important to understand the enemy's weapons. You found it well."

If Gu Min-hwan was trying to argue for the legality of euthanasia, then this testimony was something that he would definitely bring up. It would be strong evidence that A did not want to live any longer.

But it wasn't a perfect proof either.

"It's clear that Mr. A was feeling pessimistic about life... but can we be sure that that would lead to him rejecting life-sustaining treatment?"

Let's think back to what Lee Ha-roo had said earlier.

Even if a person had expressed negative views about life-sustaining treatment, they might be scared and want to receive treatment when their death was actually approaching.

It was a meaningful point.

In reality, the reason why the doctor's inference had been accepted in the Grandma Kim case was because there were two important circumstantial pieces of evidence.

One was that she was a very devout Christian, so she had a firm value system about death.

The other was that she had already rejected a tracheotomy, which was similar to life-sustaining treatment, when her most beloved person, her husband, had died.

They didn't easily infer a patient's intent based on a few words that they had said in their lifetime.

If there hadn't been those circumstances in the Grandma Kim case, then the suspension of the life-sustaining treatment wouldn't have been acknowledged as 'an exercise of self-determination'.

Therefore, it was difficult to be certain that A would have wanted to stop life-sustaining treatment based only on the fact that he was feeling pessimistic about life.

From the beginning, A was someone who had said that he should die, but he didn't have the courage to actually take direct action to die.

If the word 'courage' was inappropriate, then you could change it to say that the words of wanting to die were not that sincere.

What was important was that it was difficult to be sure that A would have wanted the life-sustaining treatment to be stopped.

"The possibility of recovery is also a problem."

I flipped through the stack of documents and pulled out a piece of paper.

"Oh, that's..."

"Do you remember? It's the doctor's opinion that we saw earlier."

[Opinion]

[K, a doctor specialized in reviewing medical records at C Hospital]

...(omitted)... Therefore, considering the patient's self-respiration, the unevenness of the cerebral cortex, and the state of damage to the cerebellum, it is reasonable to assume that the possibility of the patient's consciousness being recovered is only about 20%... (omitted)...

'What kind of doctor writes a sentence like this?'

The sentences that were explaining the symptoms in the earlier part were not like this, but the conclusion of this opinion was clearly written in a tone that was obviously written by a lawyer.

Expressions like 'it is reasonable to assume' were typical expressions that were often used in precedents and legal documents.

If they had gone to the trouble of rewriting it, then it meant that there was a reason why they had to do it.

"What was the percentage that was used as the standard for irreversibility in the Grandma Kim case?"

"Just a minute, I'll look it up... According to the precedents and the facts, the attending physician said that there was less than a 5% chance of the patient's consciousness being recovered, and the specialists said that there was almost no possibility of recovery and that the patient was close to being brain-dead."

"As expected."

20% was a number that was too high to say that there was no way that he could recover.

To put it simply, even in online games, there were cases where people would spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a draw that had a much lower probability, like 2% or 3%, thinking that it was worth a shot.

It was a serious decision that was taking away a human life.

When considering the conditions to justify euthanasia, the court was more meticulous and conservative than you could imagine.

They wouldn't easily acknowledge its justification unless it was a case where there was no room for argument and where it was obvious that the patient couldn't live, and that the person would have wanted to die.

"Alright, we can exclude the possibility of a not guilty verdict based on legal euthanasia."

I let out a sigh of relief.

If it was euthanasia that couldn't be justified, then it was clearly a crime.

What was left was to decide the type and form of the crime, and to create a solid logic to support it.

"But."

At that time, Lee Ha-roo, who had been looking at her laptop instead of the documents, suddenly raised her hand.

"What's this?"