beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant of mistake of facts merely saw that the victim attempted to enter the house and could harm his wife and children.
In addition, the injury of the victim is the upper part that occurred when the victim was removed from the defendant in order to remove the defendant and the victim, so there is no causal relationship with the violence of the defendant.
B. B. Before the instant case by misapprehending legal principles, the victim sent text messages threatening the Defendant and his wife to prevent the victim from entering the house in order to prevent danger and injury. Thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.
C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In full view of the following facts admitted by the lower court as to the mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the lower court, and each of the circumstances inferred therefrom, it can be recognized that the Defendant suffered bodily injury by the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, and the proximate causal link between the Defendant’s assault and the victim’s injury is also acknowledged.
1. The victim stated at the investigative agency that "the defendant tried to close the door connected to the inside of the restaurant, and it has been removed to prevent it." The defendant tried to photograph the same part of the lower court's body inside the kitchen, which was found to have been cut off by breaking up the title of the defendant. In the event of the above, the victim stated that "at the court of the original instance, the defendant did not have a title "at the same time as the defendant did not put a title," and that "at the court of the original instance, the defendant added it to the same manner that "at the same time, the victim was reported to 112 at the time of the case, and as seen below, D's statement was the same as the statement concerning the situation of the case of the victim, and the victim's statement was about 1 year after the occurrence of the above case."