beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant requested E and D to leave from his dry field that steals scambling scams, thereby not assaulting only two descendants, and E and D did not have any injury.
2. Determination
A. In addition to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant also recognized the fact that the Defendant took advantage of the following circumstances, namely, E, D, and vagabonds, and the fact that the Defendant took advantage of both hand and hand. However, even if this action was committed, the Defendant exercised direct and indirect tangible power necessary for the establishment of the crime of assault against the victims.
In light of the fact that it can be sufficiently recognized, it can be recognized that the defendant committed assault against E and D.
B. We examine whether A. E and D actually suffered from the injury. ① The injury diagnosis report issued by E and D is suffering from the injury of brain dead sugar, etc. of 2 weeks prior to the occurrence of E, and the injury of the climatic base of D 2 weeks prior to the occurrence of the injury. It is consistent with the consistent statement of the victims as to the price parts or the developments leading up to violence, ② E was under the first-aid vehicle in the hospital immediately after the occurrence of the instant accident, and D was under the medical treatment at the hospital following the occurrence of the instant accident. As D was under the medical treatment, the date of the instant accident and the date the victims received the medical treatment were close to the date of the instant accident, ③ E and D are extremely weak that the medical examination report was falsely prepared.
(c)
On the other hand, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Defendant was a justifiable act, inasmuch as he infringed upon the E-D’s dry field without permission, and demanded the victims to leave, and thus, the Defendant was only a lawful act. However, considering the time, place, background of intrusion, etc. of the crime, the Defendant had a tangible force beyond the generally permissible level.