logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
대법원 1968. 11. 12. 선고 68도912 판결
[살인,살인미수,재물손괴][집16(3)형,050]
Main Issues

Cases where it is recognized that there was willful negligence in the murder of the defendant committed by the defendant

Summary of Judgment

On the other hand, the fighting between "A" and "I" had been punished by the victim's misconduct, and the defendant found the fighting between "A" and "I" with "A" as a drinking house in which the victims drink the alcohol, and the victim started at the house before the fighting between "A" and "I", and the defendant also carried the victim's knife with "A" while fighting between "A" and "I", and the victim's knife with the knife with the knife of the knife and the other victims reached the victim's knife with the knife, the knife's knife and the knife with the victim's knife with the result of the attack, the knife's act and the deadly weapon's act cannot be said to constitute excessive self-defense and self-defense.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 21 of the Criminal Act

Escopics

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Jinju support in the first instance, Daegu High Court Decision 68No87 delivered on June 20, 1968

Text

The appeal is dismissed.

One hundred forty-five days, out of the number of days pending trial after appeal, shall be included in the principal sentence.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal by a private defense counsel (the defendant himself/herself and the public defense counsel do not submit an appellate brief) are examined.

1. The facts of the crime of murder and attempted murder committed by the victim of the first instance judgment cited by the original judgment regarding detailed investigation of the victims were no more than 5 and 6 victims who were involved in the crime of murder and attempted murder, and the victim's non-indicted 2 took advantage of the circumstances where the victims were involved in an attack with the victim's wall, and the victim's non-indicted 2 took advantage of the same reasoning that the victim's knife and the victim's knife would not have been involved in an attack with the victim's knife for the first time, and that the victim's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's knife's k's knife's k's k.

2. In the case where the original judgment was sentenced to five years of imprisonment with prison labor against the defendant, the principal opinion is groundless, since the original judgment cannot be used as the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the consistent opinion of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)

arrow