[상해치사][공2001.7.1.(133),1435]
The case holding that in case where the husband in a divorce action committed a knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's death, the act does not constitute self-defense or excessive defense.
The case holding that in the case where the husband in a divorce lawsuit committed an act of violence against her husband and sexual intercourse with her husband, and the wife caused knife's death, such act does not constitute self-defense or excessive self-defense on the ground that it cannot be accepted by social norms as it goes beyond the limit of defense as an act of defense.
Articles 21 and 259(1) of the Criminal Act
[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Defendant
Defendant
Law Firm Dongbu General Law Office, Attorneys Kim Ho-chul et al.
Seoul High Court Decision 2000No2528 delivered on February 13, 2001
The appeal is dismissed. 80 days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.
The defendant and his defense counsel's grounds of appeal are also examined.
According to the records, on November 21, 1987, the defendant got out of the victim's knife and her knife with 190 knife and her knife (1994 knife) and her knife (1994 knife). The victim went out of the victim's knife with his knife and knife with knife and her knife with his knife and knife with his knife and knife with his knife and knife with his knife and knife with his knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife.
Even though the defendant, as such, committed violence and intimidation from the victim in order to avoid these violence and intimidation, the defendant's act of making the victim knife in light of the degree of the victim's assault and intimidation cannot be deemed to go beyond the limit of the victim's defense act to protect himself/herself from violence, and therefore, such defense act cannot be accepted by social norms. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a considerable reason as an act to defend the current infringement of his/her legal interests, or that the act of defense goes beyond that limit. Therefore, the defendant's crime of this case does not constitute self-defense or excessive self-defense. Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal pointing out that the court below did not ex officio decide on the defendant's self-defense assertion without filing an appeal cannot be accepted.
Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and part of the number of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)