2018No2973 Violence and Damage to Property

A

Prosecutor

The Southern Jin-Jin ( Prosecution and Acting for Public Prosecutor) shall be held in court.

Attorney Kim Yong-Hy (Korean)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018 High Court Decision 938 Decided September 13, 2018

August 22, 2019

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of legal principles or factual errors);

Even if the Defendant, while getting off a bus along with E, attacked E head debt, and the Defendant’s above act was conducted in the process of defending the assault of E, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s above act constitutes an attack against E on the other hand, on the other hand, and constitutes an act of attack against E. In addition, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s cell phone was stored on the bus floor and damaged the bus floor. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of assault in the facts charged in this case constitutes self-defense or legitimate act, and that each of the Defendant was acquitted on the ground that there was no proof of a crime against the damage of property, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below

1) Points of assault

In light of the fact that the defendant continued to contact with E while he was unable to hold his body inside the D bus, E was aware of the defendant's physical contact with the defendant's body due to the defect of the defendant's body, and it was found that he left the son's body and her mother used by the defendant, and she was found to have got off the defendant's head her head her as above, E was discharged from the D bus with the defendant's head her head her head her as mentioned above, until the witness reported to the police and arrived by the police officer, and E was her head her head her, and E was her head her body until the police officer arrives. At the time of witness's arrival, it was stated to the effect that the defendant was her head her head her, and that the defendant did not her head she was found to have been her head her, but this constitutes a passive act of self-defense or an act of self-defense that is reasonable in light of social norms.

2) The point of causing property damage

E argues that the defendant has broken his mobile phone machine onto the floor of the bus and damaged the liquidness of the bus. However, according to the CCTV images inside the above D bus, it cannot be ruled out that the above mobile phone machine fell into the floor in the course of assaulting the defendant in the above D bus, and it cannot be ruled out that the above mobile phone machine was damaged. There is no evidence to recognize that the defendant was satisfing on the bus floor in addition to the E's statement, and there is no evidence to prove that the E's statement on the work in the above D bus has broken down on the bus floor, and it is not found guilty of this part of the facts charged because the whole exaggerations the above statement.

B. Judgment of the court below

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, E refers to the defendant's physical contact with the defendant who is unable to take place within the bus, and moves the defendant's body, but the defendant still without centering the defendant's body and takes e's hair back by hand, e's cell phone machine from e's outer slot machine to the bus floor. The defendant is not the defendant after checking the cell phone machine in the bus floor, and his cell phone machine was on the bus floor. The defendant's act was not on the bus floor after gathering the above cell phone machine from the bus floor to the point of view of the defendant's behavior at the time of the investigation, and the defendant's act was not on the front door of the bus, and the defendant's act was not on the front door of the bus at the time of his request by the police officer, and the defendant was on the front door of the bus at the time of his request.

In light of the various circumstances acknowledged by the court below, although police officers were taking away from the bus floor in India at the time of the dispatch to the site, and there were circumstances where the bus floor was located after confirming whether the defendant was one by gathering the mobile phone apparatus of the E located far from the bus floor at the time of the dispatch to the site, the defendant's act is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or the possibility of damage to the mobile phone within the scope of social norms, since it is reasonable to recognize that the above act of the defendant's act constitutes self-defense or the above act of the defendant's act constitutes damage to the mobile phone, since it is reasonable to recognize that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense under social norms, and it is also reasonable to recognize that the above act of the defendant's act constitutes self-defense.

Therefore, the court below's decision of not guilty of the facts charged in this case is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles. The prosecutor's argument is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Constitutional Court of the presiding judge, judge and judge

Judges Kim Gung-soo

Judges Hong Jin-jin