The case where it is recognized that the act of anti-influort during a failure fighting is to defend the present unfair infringement.

When the victim and his/her relatives were faced with the defendant's friendly non-indicted 1 at a length of 1 meters around the defendant's friendship, and the defendant, who did not leave the left-hand bridge from the aftermath of the defendant's friendly 1, showed that they were faced with the knife in each item, so if the victim died with the knife with the knife used in the knife to defend the defendant's imminent harm to his/her life, it is reasonable to interpret the defense to defend the current unfair infringement even if the defense is an act against the knife during the knife match, and the balance between the defense act and the infringement of legal interests is significantly different in light of social norms, so the defense act exceeded the extent of the defense act. Therefore, the self-defense is not constituted, but constitutes excessive defense.

Article 21 of the Criminal Act

May 24, 1957, 4290 Form105 decided May 24, 195 (Article 21(5) of the Criminal Act, 1236 pages, 5891)

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Seoul District Court's East Branch (82 Gohap78)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a short term of two years and six months and three years.

One hundred-five days of detention days prior to the pronouncement of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The first ground for appeal by the defendant and his defense counsel was only knife in the future without the intent of murdering the victim, and the victim died in the future, so the judgment of the court below which found the defendant as a crime of murder is erroneous in law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the facts, and the second ground for appeal is that the victim and her son and her son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, and the second ground for appeal is that the defendant tried to attack the defendant again by her son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son son, and that the judgment of the court below's decision of appeal is unfair.

Therefore, in light of the records and records, even if the defendant and his defense counsel did not appear to have any error in the judgment of the court below, the defendant's appeal No. 2 cannot be accepted, and 10 persons, such as the victim's pro-Japanese testimony and statement in the trial court of the court below, were tried to take a fighting against the victim's pro-Japanese and the defendant's knife for the defendant's knife defense that had been caught by the defendant's knife and knife and knife's knife and knife's knife and knife's knife's knife and knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife and knife's knife's knife's knife.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the following is ruled again after pleading.

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and their evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The defendant's act constitutes self-defense or excessive defense as an act to defend the present unfair infringement of his legal interest. In particular, the defendant's act constitutes a situation where excessive defense was made in an uneasible situation, and thus the defendant's act is not illegal or responsible. Thus, the defendant's act is so-called "overdefense" under Article 8 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act as stated in the reasons for reversal. Further, although the defendant who was a failed fight falls under excessive defense as stated above, the defendant's act cannot be deemed as having reached the remaining defense act of this case in an uneasible situation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it differently, the defendant's assertion is reasonable to the extent of the above recognition.

Since the court below's judgment falls under Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, the defendant's so-called so-called "short-term imprisonment" is subject to excessive defense under Article 8 (2) of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and is punished within the scope of statutory mitigated punishment by applying Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act, or since the defendant is a juvenile under Article 2 of the Juvenile Act, he shall be punished within the scope of statutory mitigated punishment by applying Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, he shall be punished by imprisonment for a short term of two years and six months under Article 54 of the same Act, and one hundred-five days of detention before the sentence is

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Young-man (Presiding Judge)