상해
The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.
1. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant was pro-Japanese with the victim C (n, 44 years old), and that the Defendant and the victim were not good to make a mutual appraisal due to the distribution of miscarriages.
On July 29, 2014, at around 21:50, the Defendant was on the second floor of the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Da, and was on the second floor of the Defendant’s house.
3 Finding the victim who was lying in the sprinker Ka E, was found, and the victim was faced with the victim's body by hand, such as head, arms, legs, etc., and the victim was tightly laid down by hand. With the hand floor, the victim's head and bridge were taken several times, and the victim's head and bridge were taken several times due to drinking and sprink.
As a result, the defendant had been faced with a face that needs to be treated for about two weeks.
2. The act of the defendant in his/her claim against the defendant and his/her defense counsel constitutes a political party defense or an emergency escape in order to prevent the victim from causing harm to the E (the defendant's wife).
3. Determination
A. Relevant legal principles 1) For an act to be recognized as a legitimate defense, it must be reasonable to defend against the current unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Thus, a legitimate defense against an unlawful and lawful infringement is not recognized. Whether a defense act is socially reasonable or not should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, the completion of the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest that may be infringed by the act of defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003). 2) There was no “current objective and unfair infringement” which is a requirement for legitimate defense.
Even if there is such an infringement by a person who committed the act
In the event that such mistake was erroneous, and there were justifiable grounds for such mistake, its illegality may be dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 68Do370 delivered on May 7, 1968, etc.). B. In light of the above legal principles, this is reasonable.