2015Do18325 Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Habitual Injury)

A

Defendant

Attorney J (Ship)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015No3574 Decided November 12, 2015

February 18, 2016

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

1. The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.

The decision is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the freedom against logical and empirical rules.

misunderstanding the legal doctrine on self-defense, excessive defense, and legitimate act beyond the bounds of the principle of ex officio proof;

There is no violation of law such as law.

2. The decision shall be made ex officio;

A. The former Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Amended by Act No. 13718, Jan. 6, 2016)

Article 2 (1) of the former Punishment of Violences Act (hereinafter referred to as the "former Punishment of Violences Act") shall be construed as "Habitually following offenses:

Any person who commits a crime shall be punished in accordance with the following classification:

The Act of January 6, 2016 lists violent crimes and provides the statutory penalty accordingly.

Article 2(1) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act amended and enforced by Act No. 13718 is deleted.

There was no transitional provision separately.

In such a case, there was a provision of aggravated constituent elements for violent crimes under the Criminal Code.

The purpose of deletion of Article 2 (1) of the Punishment of Violences Act is the same as the aggravated constituent elements.

General risk of being a habitive wall of an act of violence, including the crimes listed in each subparagraph of paragraph;

Even if considered, the circumstances leading to the individual crime, the specific attitude of the act, and the degree of infringement of legal interests are very important.

On the other hand, it is unfair to punish the previous measure that is to be punished uniformly.

It should be viewed as sexual action.

Therefore, this crime is committed by the amendment of the law after the crime under Article 1 (2) of the Criminal Code.

Since a sentence does not constitute or is less than that of the old law, it constitutes a new law in accordance with the above provision.

Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12930 Decided March 11, 2010; Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12930 Decided July 11, 2013

2013Do4862, 2013 Jeondo101, etc.

B. The court below found the defendant habitually injured the victim E in the facts of this case.

For the purpose of Article 2 (1) 3 of the former Punishment of Violences Act and Article 257 (1) of the Criminal Act, guilty

The judgment of the first instance court was affirmed.

However, according to the above legal principles, the facts charged of this case is conducted pursuant to Article 1(2) of the Criminal Act.

Since the provisions of the former Punishment of Violences Act cannot be applied to a corporation, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained.

It became impossible to do so.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case C

The Si shall be remanded to the court below for a trial and determination, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a trial and determination.

It is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Newly Inserted by the presiding judge of the Supreme Court

Justices Lee Jin-soo

The Chief Justice Park Jae-young

Justices Kim Gin-young