beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.07.20 2018노677

모욕

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal presented by the Defendant to the victim F, who is the police officer at the time, set up his fingers in front of several people and take the bath as shown in the facts charged, but at the time, the police officer, who was called by the Defendant to the scene of a dispute with D, committed an illegal act that the victim, who was called to the scene of the dispute with D, was willing to unilaterally take on the part of the other party, and thus, constitutes an act of political party that does not go against social norms by making the Defendant resisting to himself.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. In order for a certain act to be dismissed as a justifiable act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the benefits of protection and infringement, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do83, Oct. 17, 2013). The following circumstances are revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (i) the Defendant was able to find an office in the o’clock on May 12, 2017; (ii) the Defendant was able to take advantage of the reason that the bus engineer J of D was late on the bus from the o’clock on May 12, 2017, and (iii) the Defendant was unable to resolve the Defendant’s civil petition because the relevant bus engineer was already retired, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to resolve it again.

(2) The defendant, however, did not leave the D office at around 15:20 and reported to the police office at around 112. Thus, the victim, who is the police officer, was called to the D office. ③ The victim, at the site, was sent to the D office, after hearing the horses of both the defendant and D and re-exploiting the circumstances to the D office, and the victim did not receive sufficient service from the J of the bus engineer.