폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In a misunderstanding of the facts or legal principles, the act of a victim by a misunderstanding of the facts or finding out a vehicle by a misunderstanding the victim was committed at night in a situation where the victim et al. al. gets off a vehicle from a vehicle on the part of the defendant by blocking the vehicle, damaging the front seat of the driver's seat, duplicing him/her, and making his/her face back. As such, it constitutes a legitimate defense (Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act), excessive defense (Article 21(2) of the Criminal Act), or an act without any possibility of expectation (Article 21(3) of the Criminal Act), and thus, illegality or responsibility is dismissed.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for an ex officio appeal, the prosecutor examined the facts of the appeal ex officio, and the prosecutor applied for changes in the applicable law to "Article 3 (1), 2 (1) 3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" in "Article 258-2 (1) and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act" as "Article 258-2 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act," and since the court was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it, this part of the judgment below was no longer maintained.
Nevertheless, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles is subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.
B. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, where it is reasonable to see that the perpetrator’s act of the relevant legal principles is a defense act, rather than for defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator first fighted with his intent to attack and set up against it, such act constitutes a defense act.