logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.01.13 2015노1477
상해등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the victim D's large-scale tree was required to remove more than the Defendant's house and several times with regard to the damage of property under Paragraph 1 (a) of the judgment of the court below, the victim did not remove it, and the defendant did not have the right to do so. Thus, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act.

2) As to the damage of property under Paragraph 2 (a) of the holding, the act of the defendant constitutes a legitimate defense or a legitimate act, since the victim E assaults the defendant with a stick, and the defendant sets a stick at the defense level.

3) As to the act of injury, there was no fact that the Defendant was pushed the victims, and the Defendant was assaulted by the victims, stick, and sick. Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes the elements for the formation of an injury, it constitutes a legitimate defense or a justifiable act.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The "act that does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and thus, it should be determined individually by considering and reasonably the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act (Supreme Court Decision 2008Do609 Decided October 23, 2008).

arrow