beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Although the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles constituted a legitimate act as a passive defensive act responding to the victim’s assault, it constitutes a lawful act. As such, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the lawful act, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the lawful act.
B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) "act which does not violate social rules" under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to the act which can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it, and whether certain act is justified as a legitimate act that does not violate social rules and thus, the illegality should be determined individually by considering the specific circumstances and on a reasonable basis. Thus, to recognize such legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method of the act; (c) balance of the interests of protection and infringement; (iv) balance of the interests of protection, and (v) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method other than the act.
(2) The following circumstances are consistent with the purport that: (a) the victim, from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, did not consent to the purchase of an erroneous way adjacent to the scene of the instant civil works; and (b) the victim, from April 2, 2012 to April 13:00 to April 3:30; and on April 7, 2012 to April 15:00, 201; and (c) the victim, upon considering the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of first instance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Do300, Sept. 26, 2003; 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004).