특수협박
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, who was under the influence of a victim, committed a serious verbal violence against four male breaths, thereby leaving humbbing the risk to the victim. As such, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense and thus, cannot be deemed unlawful.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.
2. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of legal interests infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of legal interests to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2114 Decided June 11, 2009, etc.). The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the following circumstances that can be recognized by the court below, namely, ① the defendant was at the place where the victim under the influence of alcohol and four male males were involved in the act of driving on behalf of the defendant for the purpose of acting on behalf of the defendant, but the call center had a different destination between the destination and the victim delivered by the call center, and thus, the call center had a bad atmosphere, such as hearing severe humiliation from the daily behavior of the victim, which led to the creation of a bad atmosphere, such as the occurrence of a trial cost, and the occurrence of a serious desire for the victim from the daily behavior of the victim. In full view of the following circumstances, the defendant's act did not constitute legitimate self-defense for the purpose of self-defense, and thus, the defendant's act did not constitute legitimate defense.
B. The extent of the intimidation of this case, as seen earlier, is unreasonable.