logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2019.09.17 2018노1913
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error or misapprehension of the legal principle) was true that the Defendant was able to take the two arms of the victim, but this was a passive resistance to prevent the victim from forced intrusion against the Defendant’s will during the night hours, and thus, the illegality of the act constitutes a justifiable act.

2. Determination

A. At around 02:10 on November 22, 2017, the Defendant committed assault against both arms of the victim on the ground that the victim D (year 36) who is an agent before the Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B apartment C head, demanded an additional substitute fee and entered the Defendant’s apartment site, and entered the Defendant’s apartment site.

B. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the above grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the above argument and found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the following grounds.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that an act that does not violate the social norms shall not be punishable as a justifiable act. Here, in order to be recognized as a justifiable act, the act must meet the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and infringed interest, urgency, and supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Do39, May 22, 1984). In addition, in a case where the victim was injured at the top time due to passive resistance to prevent the victim from entering the victim’s residence, the act that is reasonable under the social norms in light of its circumstance, purpose, means, defendant’s intent, etc. may be dismissed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2746, Feb. 28, 1995). Comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned detailed evidence, the defendant, at the time of using a mobile phone with his or her remote distance, can be seen as a residential destination.

arrow