Whether or not the victim's death or legitimate act has been committed due to able passive defense

If the defendant's act is nothing more than a fluoring of the victim's grandchildren to remove the victim's grandchildren, such act is nothing more than a fluorous passive defensive act to escape from an illegal attack of the victim, and thus, it is reasonable to view that it lacks illegality that is permissible by social norms. If the above act is recognized as an act that does not violate social norms and lacks illegality, it cannot be punished as a crime of assault even if the victim died as a result of such act.

Article 20 of the Criminal Act, Article 262 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Do400 Delivered on June 10, 1986

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Lee Sang-hee

Daegu High Court Decision 86No1653 delivered on January 28, 1987

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance, which applied the defendant to the crime of assault on the ground that it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant was dead due to the fluoral left hand of the defendant, and the victim was able to take a bath for the reason that the defendant was able to take a bath while drinking together with the company fees before returning home, and the defendant was able to take a walk for the first time, and the defendant was unable to take the baby back, and the victim was able to take a walk with the defendant's left hand, and the victim was able to recover the face of the victim once, and the head was faced with the fluoral line, and the head was fluoraled by the fluoral line of the road, and the judgment of the court of first instance which applied the defendant to the crime of assault.

In order to remove the grandchildren of the victim who is living alone of the defendant from the defendant's left hand in order to remove the grandchildren of the victim who is living alone of the defendant, the defendant has been suffering from the loss of the defendant's left hand, and the part of the defendant's hand is not intentionally to mislead the victim's face or to remove the victim's face, such act is merely an act of spreading the victim's hand in order to remove the losses of the victim who is living alone, such as the defendant's change in the defendant, and it is nothing more than an act of spreading the victim's hand in order to escape from the illegal attack of the victim's hand, and thus, it is reasonable to regard such act as an act of lacking illegality permitted by social norms. If the above act is recognized as an act of not violating social rules and lack illegality, even if the victim died as a result of such act, it cannot be punished as a crime of homicide, so the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the defendant's act of assault or misunderstanding of facts, but it can not be dismissed by the defendant's appeal without merit.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yellow-ray (Presiding Justice)