The case holding that the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act if he was injured by towing the victim to the police box, scambling him, and scam his scambling, as he was sent to the victim with a bath for the victim, and was injured by the victim.

The case holding that if the defendant, who is a taxi driver, spreads a bath that the defendant could not enter the family owner, who is a customer, and was obtained from the victim, etc., who is a family owner, to handbags and flags, etc., the defendant's act cannot be deemed as a legitimate act that is reasonable in light of social norms, if he flaged and flaged by a police box to bring the victim's handba, and flaged and flaged to bring the victim's hand.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act

A

A co-inspector;

Gwangju District Court Decision 90No620 delivered on January 17, 1991

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

As to the Grounds of Appeal

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on May 8, 1989, at around 23:35, the court below held that the defendant's act of causing bodily injury to the victim's head at around the 2nd pharmacy in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-dong, "at around 4,5, the right side of the 2nd share of the victim's head at around 3:35, 1989, the defendant was admitted as evidence, and "at around 23:35, 199, the defendant was carrying the victim's Do in his taxi at the front of the 2nd pharmacy in Gwangju-gu, Gwangju-gu, and entered the front of the 3rd pharmacy in his taxi, and refused the victim's request, and the defendant was found to have suffered bodily injury to the victim by causing the defendant's head at one time and one time, and the defendant's act of causing bodily injury to the victim's head at one time, causing the defendant's escape by asking the victim's head to the right side in light of social norms.

After all, the reason why the victim et al. sought the defendant is that the defendant's refusal to request the victim et al. to operate a taxi within the market frame is caused by the fact that the victim et al. caused the appraisal of each other at the end of the disputes. Meanwhile, the police statement of F adopted by the court below regarding the damage damage caused by the defendant, which the defendant adopted by the court below, stated that "E et al. the driver takes the driver's desire to take the driver in the taxi at the same time, and the driver takes the driver's head in the handbag with the handbag, the handbag was cut off from the ground, and D took the head back with the back of the handbag, and it was unfagd from the ground. The reason why the driver does not leave the time of his driver's death and was unilaterally damaged." The defendant's statement of F et al., which the defendant did not raise any objection against the above victim, is more than the defendant's statement of the above victim for the first time.

On the other hand, according to the police statements of the above E adopted by the court below, "I am the mother, and I am the family and D (E appears to be a clerical error) with the appearance of the family and D, I am the Hab club located in G, first am a cab, and am a cab following the low knife. I am the driver "I am am unable to get into the h clubs," and am a dispute, "I am am off because I am am off," and I am am off with theme "I am am off, I am. I am am. I do not am the above son's head at one time, and I am am off with the victim's knife, so I am the above son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son, etc., so I asked I am the above son's son's son'.

In addition, there is no evidence that the circumstances leading up to the Defendant’s injury to the victim are the same as the lower court’s recognition. Rather, in full view of the written diagnosis of a doctor I and the above F and E’s respective police statements, it can be sufficiently confirmed that the Defendant, who was faced with the above results from the victim’s injury and went to the victim from the end, was towed by the police box, and was towed by his hand.

If the facts are as above, the series of actions in this case originated from spreading a bath that the defendant, who is a driver, to the family owner, who is a customer, who could not enter the above room. Accordingly, it cannot be deemed that there is a reasonable ground to view that it is acceptable under the generally accepted social norms to see the defendant's act by towing the police box in order to bring the victim's hand to the police box and ice it to bring the victim's hand.

Therefore, the court below did not err in finding facts against the empirical rule as evidence without evidence or without credibility, or in misunderstanding the legal principles as to legitimate acts stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)