logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.06.11 2018노3459
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Error of facts: (a) the Defendant, due to a difference between the Jparty and the political opinion, caused a defect in dispute; and (b) threatened the Defendant by surrounding the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant, who, in turn, led to physical contact with the victim to escape the situation; (d) it constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act as a passive defensive act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) On May 13, 2018, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case was examined by the victim C (hereinafter “B President’s release release campaign”) and the victim C (hereinafter “D President’s prompt correction”) who was under the “B President’s release campaign” in front of the necessary mountain district located in 2925 located in 2925 at peace around May 17:10, 2018, and assaulted the victim’s left end with the Defendant’s hand during the horse match. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning.

3) An act that does not contravene the social rules stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act for the trial of the party refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or its surrounding social ethics or social norms. Thus, if a certain act is deemed to be an active and passive defensive act that may take place under the current circumstances, such as the motive or purpose of the act is reasonable and reasonable, and the protected legal interest and the infringement legal interest are balanced, it shall be deemed to be an act that does not violate the social ethics or social norms (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11204, Mar. 27, 2014). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant was able to take the initiative first for the person who was engaged in the campaign for releasing the President’s acquittal, and the victim was the victim.

arrow