Whether there is illegality of the act of demanding a person who runs away after saving the defendant's birth in the ground, to wear his her boom belt and to accompany him to a police box.

Since the victim escaped after leaving the Defendant’s birth in the ground, the victim went away from the ground. As such, if the Defendant followed and demanded the Defendant to wear his shoulder belt and accompany him to the police box, the above victim’s act constitutes violence in light of such circumstances, even if the act of the Defendant constitutes violence, it does not violate the social rules, as the minimum measure taken to protect him from the unlawful attack of the victim, and to take him to the police box, and thus, is not unlawful.

Articles 260 and 20 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Msan District Court Decision 86No395 delivered on July 31, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The prosecutor's grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below maintained the evidence of this case that the victim of this case (the victim of this case (the victim of this case was the suspect who was injured by the non-indicted 1) who was a woman living together with the defendant and escaped from the defendant, 600 meters away, was killed by the defendant, leading the victim's breath and boom belt in the sibbb, and caused the victim's telegraph within the sib, and caused the victim's hair to be spathly spathly spathly spathy in the sib, etc. within the sib, and it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's act was not committed against the non-indicted 1, and the victim's act was committed against the non-indicted 1, but it cannot be acknowledged that the defendant's act was committed against the non-indicted 1's statements and the victim's spathy's statements cannot be found to have been committed for seven days after the victim's statement and the victim's statement.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below and the court of first instance are acceptable and there is no error in violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of litigation, in the fact-finding process. There is no ground for appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Osung-hwan (Presiding Justice)