In a case where Defendant A, B, C, C, and Defendant’s husband’s without any influence while drinking alcohol at the main point of drinking alcohol and assaulting the Defendants and shouting them, etc., Defendant A’s body, right side part, etc., Defendant B’s body, left left side part, Defendant C’s unclaimed body part, etc., and Defendant C did not put the left-hand bridge during that process, and Defendant C was prosecuted for an assault due to a fluorous death, the case holding that the Defendants acquitted the Defendants.

In a case where Defendants A, B, C, C, and C’s husband’s without her husband’s definition were prosecuted on charges of assaulting the Defendants by drinking alcohol while drinking alcohol at the main point, and assaulting the Defendants and noise, etc., Defendant A’s movement beyond her free body, Defendant B’s left body part, etc., Defendant C’s free body body part, Defendant C’s free body part, etc., and Defendant C’s free will were unable to attach a her free surface, and Defendant C’s her free will was indicted on charges of assaulting the Defendants due to her fluorous death, the case holding that the Defendants’ act of assaulting the Defendant, who was her wife at the time of drinking, committed an abnormal act such as assaulting Defendant C, etc., and that it was difficult to see that the Defendants’ act of assaulting the Defendant’s body was beyond 1 in the process of exercising social norms, and even if it was impossible to see that the Defendants’ act of assaulting the police officer’s body did not constitute an unlawful act of assault, etc.

Articles 15(2), 20, 30, 259(1), 260(1), and 262 of the Criminal Act; Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant 1 and three others

Park Dae-hwan et al.

Law Firm Mangyeong et al.

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

On July 9, 2016, at the main point of “○○○○○○,” located in the Geum-gu, Busan, around 03:00 on July 9, 2016, Defendants 1 and 2 performed the same act. Defendant 3 alone, Defendant 3, the husband, and Defendant 4 performed the same act as that of the victim Nonindicted Party 1 (year 34) who is the husband.

Around that time, the victim started to scule the sculbling by drinking alcohol, assaulting the Defendants at the above main point, and sculing.

At around 03:12 on the same day, the Defendants conspired to suppress the victim's above riot, Defendant 1 cannot be divided into two arms and body weight. Defendant 2 cannot be divided into two parts of the victim's body's left side in the same way. Defendant 3 cannot be divided into the part of the victim's body's body's body's left side in the same way. Defendant 4 assaulted the victim by preventing the victim from putting the left side of the victim's body in the same way, and thereby caused the death of the victim by massing.

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. Defendants 1, 2, and 3

① The Defendants’ act constitutes self-defense and thus, illegality is denied. Even if not, in light of the circumstances of the case, it constitutes excessive defense under Article 21(2) and (3) of the Criminal Act.

② There was no likelihood of death for the Defendants.

B. Defendant 4

(1) The defendant was only unable to attach a bridge to the left-hand side of a victim with the intention to mislead the victim who is her husband, and did not have the intention of assault.

(2) The defendant has no predictability of death.

3. Determination

A. Facts of recognition

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the following facts are recognized.

1) While the victim, the defendant 4, and the non-indicted 2 were under drinking alcohol together, the defendant 4 went to the victim's house, but the victim did not respond to it, and the defendant 4 under the influence of alcohol was at the time of the victim's left side boom.

2) As such, the victim, while under the influence of alcohol, assaulted Defendant 4, such as plucking, plucking, etc. of Defendant 4’s arms, and boomed Nonindicted 2, thereby speaking, Nonindicted 2. Defendant 3, on his own initiative, observed the foregoing light view and harming the victim and Nonindicted 2.

3) Defendant 3 prevented the victims who want to move to Nonindicted 2, and the victims plucked up and plucked Defendant 3’s arms, and Defendant 1 told the victims. The victims committed an act, such as spawning for those in the main room, walking a spaws, walking a spaws, and passing sound to Nonindicted 3, the main shop, etc. In order to restrain these victims, Defendant 1 and Defendant 3 made efforts to file a petition.

4) Although Nonindicted 3’s table was to file a petition with Nonindicted 3, Nonindicted 3’s table, the victim she sawd and hered to Nonindicted 3. Defendant 3: (a) the victim prevented the victim; and (b) the victim’s her neck, the victim’s her neck was cut off with Defendant 3, followed by Defendant 3’s body; and (c) Defendant 1 tried to witness this light, to stop the victim from her neck, and at the same time, Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 told the victim at the same time. In the process, the victim and Defendant 1 were in excess of the victim and Defendant 1 together.

5) Although Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 could not occur, Defendant 2 exceeded the victim’s power. Accordingly, Defendant 1 prevented the victim from occurring due to Defendant 2’s left arms and shoulder parts, Defendant 2’s left arms and shoulder parts of the victim, Defendant 3’s her hack or right bridge parts of the victim, and Defendant 4’s hacks on the part of the victim’s left bridge.

6) The Defendants: (a) prevented the victims from 3:12:00 to 3:00 p.m.; (b) prevented them from 5:00 p.m.; and (c) in the process, Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 were on the part of the victims.

7) The police officers in receipt of Nonindicted 3’s report arrived at the main place at around 3:17:0 a.m., and the Defendants got her from the victim. At the time, the victim was hidden, but there was no consciousness, but the police officer reported the victim to 119. As a result, the victim discontinued pulmonary resuscitation, Defendant 1, and Nonindicted 4 reported her cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The 119 first responder in receipt of the report, who again carried out cardiopulmonary resuscitation again, transferred the victim to the emergency room of △△△ Hospital, but the victim died.

8) The victim’s physical size is the strong body size of 186 cm and 153 km. As a result of the autopsy, the victim’s snow fluid and ethyl alcohol concentration of terminal blood was 0.209 % and 0.183%, and the cause of the victim’s death was found to be a pressure-consumptive organs. In the case of pressure-consumptive corrosion, the victim’s death was clearly identified as a tension-consumptive organs.

B. Determination

1) The crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person's body, and the exercise of tangible force refers to the physical force causing physical pain (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). Even if physical force is operated, if it cannot be deemed as an unlawful attack against a person's body, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes a crime of assault under Article 260 (1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1796, Oct. 14, 1986; 2014Hun-Ma818, Jun. 25, 2015).

2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the victim abused Defendant 4, who was the wife under the influence of alcohol at the time, and committed abnormal actions, such as assaulting Nonindicted 2 and Defendant 3, and the victim was unable to restrain by itself, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and Defendant 3 and Defendant 4 appear to have tensiond until the police officer took place. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act was an unlawful attack on the body of the victim, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants assaulted the victim, or that there was an intentional assault against the Defendants.

3) It is recognized that the Defendants used somewhat physical force, such as suppressing the victim’s will. In the process of speaking the victim’s distress, the above Defendants’ act constitutes an assault. Even if the Defendants’ act constitutes an intentional act of assault, as seen earlier, the Defendants committed assault against Nonindicted 2, etc., who was Defendant 4 and the third party, the victim of physical size of 153km in 186 km, as seen earlier, while under the influence of alcohol, and Nonindicted 2, etc., who was the victim of physical size of 153 km, did not stop the victim’s extreme behavior, such as Defendant 3’s plucking and plucking, caused a dangerous situation. Accordingly, the Defendants’ act committed in the process of stopping it constitutes an act that does not violate the social rules, since it is reasonable to the extent that it can be permitted by social norms in view of the motive and the present situation.

4) In addition, considering the circumstances of the instant case, such as the fact that the victim’s physical strength was the centerr, and the Defendants only committed an act to the extent that the Defendants took advantage of the victim’s arms and legs to prevent them from putting the victim’s arms and legs, it would be very exceptional that the Defendants’ act would cause the victim’s quality death, which is difficult to expect from the perspective of the general public. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants could have predicted the result of the death.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the Defendants are acquitted pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)