폭행
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant did not commit an assault against the victim due to the breathing of dubs of the victim D, etc., as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the lower judgment.
B. In light of the legal principles (2013 high-level 2059), the Defendant reported that he/she did a dispute with E, the aged 84 years old, and that he/she actively pushed the victim during the process of speaking fighting, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not violate the social norms, and thus, it does not constitute a justifiable act.
C. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined in the court below's erroneous determination of facts, when the victim D was punished by F and Si expenses as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the defendant can sufficiently be found to have committed the assault against the victim due to the frying of the victim's ebbbbage, etc.
B. In order to constitute a justifiable act stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, the purpose of the crime is to maintain the legitimacy of the purpose, reasonableness of means or methods, balance of legal interests between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and supplement, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do699, Oct. 23, 2008). When the victim is punished for a dispute with E, the victim involved in the defendant, and thereby, the victim took part in the act, i.e., overing the victim’s chest and face with the victim’s hand, the crime is justifiable.
The defendant's assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles is without merit, because it is difficult to regard it as having the reasonableness of the means or method, and it is difficult to consider it as meeting the requirements of supplement.
C. The Defendant did not have any record of criminal punishment, and the Defendant agreed with the victim in the first instance only, and the Defendant each of the instant cases.