The case holding that the defendant's act was a legitimate act since it was merely an able passive defensive act to prevent the victim from committing an improper act.

The case holding that it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act is a legitimate act that has no illegality on the grounds that it is merely an act of passive and passive defense to prevent the victim's improper behavior, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms, since it is nothing more than an act of the victim's own passive and defensive defense to prevent the victim's improper behavior, in case where the victim's act was committed by blocking the defendant from the defendant's course at the entrance of the lecture room of the university where the defendant is working as a professor, and the defendant physically obstructed the defendant's arms in order to escape from his failure.

Articles 20 and 257(1) of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Do39 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987, 847) 90Do292 delivered on March 27, 1990 (Gong1990, 1025) 92Do37 delivered on March 10, 1992 (Gong192, 1342)

Defendant

A co-inspector;

Daejeon District Court Decision 94No1479 delivered on March 31, 1995

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the prosecutor's grounds of appeal.

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, the defendant, who was the president of the school foundation 1, was dismissed from the school principal of the middle school annexed to the above school foundation. However, the above victim was found to have a number of the defendant's house, and the defendant was found to be a university laboratory with two times or more prior to the above case, and the defendant was found to be a professor, making it difficult to avoid disturbance and make it difficult for him/her to do so at each time. On the day of the above case, at around 10:00 on the day of this case, at around 10:0, the defendant was able to leave the 4th floor lecture room, and the defendant was her husband, who was the husband of the victim, and the non-indicted 2 was dismissed from the middle school annexed to the above school foundation. However, the defendant was forced to leave the 4th floor lecture room, and the defendant tried to get annoy damage from the defendant's body and tried to get the victim out of the above 1st floor away from the defendant's body.

On the contrary, if the facts are as above, the defendant's bullyings were brutly bullyings between the above victim and the above victim's bullyings. However, the above victim's act was nothing more than a passive passive defense against the victim's unfair behavior, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act is not unlawful in light of social norms since it is merely an frutive and passive defense to prevent the victim's improper behavior, or there is no other police officer around the above place or there was a police officer around the above place.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act is justifiable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles of a justifiable act as discussed above. There is no reason to argue.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)