beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.15 2018노186

상해등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles and improper sentencing)

A. Legal doctrine misunderstanding (related to the crime of injury) of the victim F et al. used physical power against the victim F in order to oppose the assault of the defendant by collectively blocking the defendant who is willing to hold an assembly of the flive engine. Thus, such defendant's act constitutes legitimate defense.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court’s determination on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine reveals the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: (i) the victim F, in relation to the developments leading up to the damage, he/she should impeachment the D President in the subway, and take the dynamic flas with the regime in an investigative agency, “the Defendant was flick and flick,” and the Defendant expressed a desire to do so.

For this reason, the victim cannot take the bath.

The defective defendant exercised violence.

“The Defendant’s act does not constitute a legitimate defense in light of the following: (a) the statement to the effect that “” was made; (b) the contents of the CD images taken at the time of the Defendant’s use of the said violence correspond to the said statement by the victim F, etc.; and (c) materials or circumstances supporting that the victim F, etc. committed violence by the Defendant collectively prior to the Defendant’s use of the violence; and (c) rather, according to the CD images, the victim F, etc. could not be discovered; and (b) the surrounding persons who wish to leave the scene after the Defendant assaulted the victim F, can check the scene where the Defendant followed the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. The fact that the defendant denies his criminal act against the crime of injury up to the trial of the party, and the defendant did not receive a letter from the victims, and there are several criminal records of the same kind of violence to the defendant.