beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), CCTV images and victim statements, the victim unilaterally committed an illegal attack against the defendant.
It can not be seen that the defendant's act constitutes a new affirmative attack, and thus, it cannot be viewed that it is a legitimate act.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the defendant's act is reasonable in light of social norms and thus, the illegality is dismissed, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. As to the facts charged in this case where the defendant plucked, plucked, plucked, and injured the injured party's spath, the lower court determined that ① the victim intending to spathize the defendant's spath, intending to spathize the defendant's spath, and stated to the effect that he did not commit any other violence against the defendant in order to unspathize it, ② the victim was listed in the elevator according to the defendant, ② the victim was unspathing the defendant's clothes, and continued to do the defendant's clothes, and did not impose any tax imposed on the defendant, and the defendant was able to perform his behavior to escape it, ③ the degree of the injured party's spathical force exceeds the degree of the exercise of a reasonable tangible force.
Comprehensively taking account of the fact that it is difficult to readily conclude, the Defendant used the same force as the instant case as a means of resistance to escape from the victim’s unfair assault.
It is reasonable to see this as a new affirmative attack, and it is difficult to evaluate this as a new affirmative attack, and therefore, the defendant's act was judged not guilty on the ground that it is reasonable to allow it in light of social norms, and thus
B. The evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court for the relevant deliberation.