beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 50,000 won, and by imprisonment of Defendant B, one year and eight months.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding the legal principles, Defendant B unlawfully intrudes on the house and assaulted Defendant B, and threatened Defendant B with a deadly weapon to escape from such threat. Thus, Defendant A’s act of assault against Defendant A constitutes legitimate defense.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant A guilty of the assault against Defendant B among the facts charged against Defendant A is improper.
2) Illegal conviction even if the sentencing was committed.
Even if the court below's punishment (one million won) is too unreasonable, it is too unreasonable.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination on Defendant A’s grounds for appeal
A. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of judgment as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine was carried out with one another’s intent of attack rather than to defend the victim’s unfair attack, and that the perpetrator’s act was committed against one another’s attack, it cannot be viewed as a legitimate defense since the perpetrator’s act has the nature of attack at the same time, which is a defensive act (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Do228, Mar. 28, 200, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the reason and developments leading up to the Defendants’ physical match, the circumstance leading up to the Defendants’ act of drinking against Defendant B, the degree of type of defense that the Defendants exercised against each other, the means of defense that Defendant A used by Defendant B, the point at which Defendant A used Defendant B and the point at which Defendant B threatened Defendant A with a dangerous object that Defendant B used to commit an attack against Defendant B, and even if so, the Defendants’ act constitutes an attack against the left-hand of the Defendant B’s attack.