beta
Text
Defendant
D and prosecutor's appeals are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant D1) misunderstanding of facts is merely an unilaterally assaulted by B, A, and C, and there was no assault by breaking b and sculping b. 2) Even if the Defendant was in contact with B even if the Defendant was in contact with B, this constitutes self-defense, as it is for the sole purpose of avoiding the Defendant’s unilaterally assault by three family members.
B. In light of the following: (a) the core statement that the prosecutor (Defendant A) made an assault against the Defendant A even if some of the statements were inconsistent, was consistent; and (b) the Defendant’s parent B, C, and D’s wife I’s vision prior to the instant case; (c) thus, there is considerable possibility that the Defendant A, who caused the lack of appraisal, could have abused D; and (d) thus, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty even though it could have acknowledged the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact by failing to exhaust the deliberation.
2. Determination
A. In order to establish self-defense under Article 21 of the Criminal Act, the act of defense must be socially reasonable, taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, and method of infringement of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, etc.
(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the act of a perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense, rather than for the purpose of defending a victim’s unfair attack, and thus, constitutes self-defense. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the act of a perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense, rather than for the purpose of defending the victim’s unfair attack. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the act of a perpetrator’s act constitutes self-defense.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). It can be seen by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court.