logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.08.28 2013노2820
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only spreaded to remove the Defendant’s son’s son’s fat, and did not commit an assault on the victim’s fat, fating or drinking fat, and even if there were such facts, the Defendant’s illegality should be avoided because it was an act to escape from the current infringement of the Defendant’s body, and constitutes a justifiable act that does not violate the self-defense or social norms, which has considerable grounds. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense shall be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense;

(See Supreme Court Decisions 92Do2540 delivered on December 22, 1992; 2003Do4934 delivered on June 25, 2004, etc.). In addition, in a case where it is reasonable to deem that an act by a perpetrator was committed with the intent of attacking one another rather than with the intent of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and that the act was committed with the intent of attacking one another, and the act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Do228 Decided March 28, 200, Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934 Decided June 25, 2004, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, namely, the Defendant: (a) around 20:55 on May 15, 2013, 201: (b) the Defendant: (c) Habba driven by the victim C while driving on a road near Daejeon-dong 72-3 neighboring the Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, Daejeon; (d) Haba, who was caused by it, set the border to the right-hand side of the road.

arrow