The case holding that a violation of the Punishment of Violences Act constitutes self-defense

The case holding that the victim's self-defense constitutes self-defense in the case where the victim attempts to recklessly see the vehicle of the defendant's driver and to resist the defendant's dancing, to tear and to attract the defendant, and the defendant takes approximately three minutes of the victim's knife until the police officer arrives.

Article 21 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 98No10344 delivered on February 5, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, in determining the defendant's assertion of self-defense, the court below took into account the evidence adopted by the court of first instance and the testimony of the non-indicted witness at the court below on July 10, 1997. The defendant, at around 21:25, 1997, had the non-indicted who is the non-indicted, the defendant's matrimonial partner at the defendant's vehicle owned by the defendant, and had been driving 233 in Seongdong-dong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. However, under the influence of alcohol, the victim waiting for a taxi at India attempted to mistake his own employee's company's vehicle and move to the roadway and move to the above vehicle. Accordingly, the victim's act of self-defense against the above defendant's car with the victim's her own car and tried to move to the above car after setting up the above car. However, the defendant's act of self-defense to the extent that the victim's body did not reach the victim's body, and the defendant's act of self-defense against the victim's body was found to be excessive.

2. However, as the above facts acknowledged by the court below, if the above victim tried to get into the front of the defendant's driver's vehicle under the influence of alcohol at night, and the situation where the defendant gets into the front of the defendant's driver's vehicle. On the contrary, if the defendant was to get into the front of the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant was to get into the front of the defendant's automobile, it is merely that the above victim's hand hand over the defendant's hand that he led the defendant's knife (the original court determined that "the defendant was going on the front of the above victim's hand," but even according to the records, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant was getting out of the victim's knife at the time of the defendant's appearance, and the facts acknowledged by the first instance court are merely "the above knife that the defendant's act was divided into two knife", and it is reasonable to regard the defendant's act as an act beyond violence against the victim's act of violence or defense.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the legal principles on self-defense or by misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence in a measure that recognized the defendant's act as excessive self-defense, not as excessive self-defense. The argument pointing this out is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)