logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.05.07 2019노6542
음악산업진흥에관한법률위반등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (the point of assault in the facts charged) recognize the fact that the defendant gets the victim's hand and damaged the victim beyond the floor as stated in the facts charged, but it is reasonable that the act of assaulting the victim constitutes self-defense and thus constitutes self-defense.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty of the assault stated in the facts charged is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant's grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 1,500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In order for a certain act to be recognized as self-defense with respect to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, it must be reasonable to defend the current infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interest. Therefore, it is not recognized as legitimate self-defense against an unlawful infringement. Whether the act of defense is socially reasonable should be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, the method of infringement, the kind and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Defendant’s act of assaulting the victim as stated in the facts charged, in order to prevent the recording of a defect in which the Defendant intended to record the said dispute, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court of first instance and the health room of the instant case, the Defendant and the victim were in dispute, and the Defendant and the victim were in dispute. The Defendant’s act of taking the victim’s cell phone from the victim’s cell phone was aimed at preventing the detection of illegal acts, such as alcoholic beverages and arrangement of loan, etc.

In light of the above, the defendant's legal interests are protected.

arrow