폭행
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to legitimate acts, since it is difficult to see that the legitimacy and suitability of the means is recognized, since the defendant's act, regardless of the victim's clothes, exceeds the type of force that can be taken in the process of fighting.
2. The "act which does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, it should be judged individually by considering the specific circumstances and on an individual basis. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met such as the legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method of the act, the balance between the third protected interests and infringed interests, the fourth urgency, and the fifth supplementary nature that there is no other means or method except the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003). The record reveals that the victim's testimony and the victim's statements were inconsistent with the defendant and the victim's statements in the court below to the effect that the victim's statements and the victim's statements were inconsistent and rational.
(2) At the time of the dispute between the victim and the defendant, the dialogue between the victim and the defendant was made in the second floor.
According to the H’s statement, the victim sustained lockedly.
Since dirmath, “h.” sound, which means that the Defendant’s “satisfed” in the investigative agency is less than that of the victim’s satch.