(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.12.24.선고 2014노490 판결

While the Defendant, while drinking alcohol together with C, dump C, shump C with a toilet glass, hump the Defendant, and humped the Defendant’s hump with his hand to escape from his hump, which constitutes self-defense, and thus, it constitutes self-defense. However, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant’s defense act should be socially reasonable, taking into comprehensive account various specific circumstances, such as the type and degree of the legal interest infringed by the act of infringement, the method of infringement, and the type and degree of the legal interest to be infringed by the act of defense, in order to establish self-defense as prescribed in Article 21 of the Criminal Act, even though the Defendant made the aforementioned assertion in the lower court even though the Defendant withdrawn it, and then again made the same assertion in the lower court. (See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007). (See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1794, Apr. 26, 2007) In a case where the perpetrator’s act was carried out with one another with the intent of attack, rather than with the aim of defending the victim’s unfair attack, and the act has the character of the act of attack as well as the act of attack, and thus, cannot be deemed as the act of self-defense or excessive defense (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do228, Mar. 28, 20000

Even if the victim first abused the defendant as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the act of the defendant committed by the victim, such as the statement in the facts charged in this case, is merely a passive defensive act, and rather, it has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as a defensive act, and it is difficult to view it as a self-defense or excessive defense. Therefore, the above argument by the

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.