beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s punishment against Defendant A (the imprisonment of four months, the suspension of execution of two years, and the community service order of 40 hours) is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (1) In this case of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the victim was not a case of non-discriminatory assault against the Defendant and the Defendant on the ground of F along with the Defendant’s room, and both violence occurred in the course of the verbal dispute between the Defendant and the victim. The Defendant’s act of franchising the victim A on the ground of franchising constitutes self-defense or excessive defense to protect the Defendant from the victim’s assault. 2) The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution, two years of community service order, 40 hours of
2. Determination
A. 1) With respect to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, in order to establish self-defense, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and type and degree of legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc. The act of defense as a requisite for the establishment of self-defense includes not only pure passive defense but also anti-defense form, including active anti-defense. However, the act of defense must be an act to defend one’s own or another’s infringement of legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do2534, Jun. 14, 2007). 2) The court below accepted part of the grounds in the dispute, and accepted the Defendant’s assertion as to the facts charged by the Defendant, by recognizing the fact that the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim, which is a dangerous object against the victim by assaulting the victim from the victim. In light of the above evidence, it cannot be said that there was an error of mistake in mistake of facts.
According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, this case.