beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the fact that the victim's body prevents the defendant from closing the elevator door by hand, etc. is somewhat pushed off, and the victim's body into the elevator, but the degree did not reach violence, and the above act is aimed at preventing the victim from closing the elevator door, and therefore, it constitutes legitimate defense.
B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 500,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. In determining the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the assault in Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of all tangible force against a person’s body (see Supreme Court Decision 99Do899, Jun. 22, 199). In light of the circumstances of the instant case that can be confirmed through CCTV images, the method and degree of exercising force against the victim, etc., the Defendant is recognized to have exercised the tangible force to the extent that it constitutes an assault under the Criminal Act against the victim.
In addition, considering the defendant's change in the lawsuit that the smuggling or knife of the victim was aimed at continuing delivery after the dispute with the victim was closed, it is difficult to view that the defendant's exercise of force first constitutes a legitimate defense as a defensive act, or a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, in the situation where the victim did not commit any attack against the defendant.
Defendant’s assertion is without merit.
B. The Korean Criminal Procedure Act, which adopts the trial-oriented principle and the principle of direct determination as to the unfair argument of sentencing, has the unique area of the first deliberation as to the determination of sentencing, and in addition, in light of the ex post facto nature of the appellate court, there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion.