beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed by A and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) did not have any desire for the victim B, and Defendant A did assault the victim B first and then b slick the victim B at a corresponding level, which constitutes a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
However, the judgment of the court below that convicted Defendant A of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles.
B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing) of the lower court’s sentence against Defendant B (an amount of KRW 4 million) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the summary of the facts charged in this case against Defendant A is that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim, such as salt dynasium, tension, etc., which requires approximately two weeks of medical treatment, by breaking the victim B’s flaps.
However, as long as Defendant A also recognized the fact that she was injured by the victim B’s act by the Defendant’s act in the investigation agency and court (36 pages of the evidence record), the relevant pictures and the medical certificate of injury, etc., and as long as Defendant A’s act was acknowledged (Evidence No. 16, 17, 32 pages of the evidence record), the victim B first attacked Defendant A.
Even if the facts charged in this case are met, it can be sufficiently recognized that Defendant A inflicted an injury on the victim B, as indicated in the facts charged in this case.
B. In light of the process and process of the occurrence of the instant case, the content of the assault and the degree of damage, etc., Defendant A’s act did not aim at the passive defense against the attack committed by the victim B, but rather at the point of intent to attack the said victim and does not appear to be an act permissible in light of social norms, and thus, it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.
Therefore, the court below's judgment that found Defendant A guilty of the facts charged in this case is just.