beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.04 2017노2386

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동상해)

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was punished in the process of occupying the management office without authority and replacing the key of the management office because the Defendant was dismissed from the position of the Director of the Management Office without authority despite his dismissal; and (b) the degree of injury to the Defendant was insignificant; and (c) the Defendant’s behavior constitutes a justifiable act and thus the illegality of the Defendant’s behavior is dismissed; (d) the lower court determined otherwise,

2. Determination

A. The "act which does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, it should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and on an individual basis, under the following circumstances: (a) the justification of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) the reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) the balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) the balance between the interests of protection and infringement; and (v) the supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300 Decided September 26, 200). In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant's act satisfies the requirements of reasonable means or method, balance between the legal interests and interests, supplement, etc.

It cannot be seen as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules.

The judgment of the court below which rejected the defendant's assertion and found the defendant guilty is just, and the defendant's assertion is not justified.

1) Regarding the right to operate the B market management office at the time of the instant case: