beta
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.05.25 2016노3310

상해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant, misunderstanding of the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the fact, showed the victim E with scam and said scam, despite the victim’s scam, the victim continued to catch the victim’s breath.

Considering these circumstances, the act of injury in this case is excluded from the illegality of a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, which is an act to escape or defend the victim’s unjust attack.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and legal principles.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (one million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and the lower court rejected it and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below: ① The victim made a statement to the effect that the victim’s finger was at the victim’s finger, and the victim’s finger was in contact with the defendant’s hair, and that the victim’s finger was at the time the victim’s finger was at the victim’s finger, and that the victim’s finger was omitted from the defendant after the fighting was completed; ② The witness of this case was pushed the defendant and the victim were pushed down with the fighting; ② the witness of this case’s statement to the effect that the victim was at the end of fighting; ② the witness of this case’s statement to the effect that the victim was at the end of fighting; ③ the attack act and defense act were committed annually between the victim and the victim; and ③ the defense act was conducted at the same time between the fighting parties, and the nature of either party’s act was at the same time, and thus, the defense act was “political” or “political act” for the purpose of defense.