[살인][공1984.8.1.(733),1239]
Act of killing his superior by breaking his superior into severe marbling of his superior and the nature of self-defense (negative)
The self-defense should be recognized that the act of defense was reasonable socially, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, the degree of completion of the act of defense, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense. Therefore, it cannot be viewed that the act of riot police officer killed his superior by taking advantage of a somewhat severe degree of senscencies of his superior, was a considerable method to defend the infringement of his body.
Articles 21 and 250 of the Criminal Act
Defendant
Defendant
Attorney Hong Hong-chul
Seoul High Court Decision 83No3317 delivered on March 2, 1984
The appeal is dismissed.
The defendant and his state appointed defense counsel's grounds of appeal are examined.
In order to establish self-defense, it should be recognized that the act of defense was socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances such as the type, degree, method of infringement, degree of legal interest infringed by the act of self-defense, and the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 66Do63, Mar. 15, 1966). The judgment of the court of first instance is not deemed to be a considerable method to defend the defendant's act of self-defense against the violation of his body, which committed the crime of this case committed by the defendant who killed his superior, as a riot police officer, and was a considerable method to defend the infringement of his superior's body. The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of self-defense or excessive defense, and it is also reasonable and reasonable to find the defendant's age, character, environment, relationship with the victim, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, and all circumstances after the crime.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)