logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.21 2016노1381
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The Defendant, by hand, did not injure the part of the victim B’s left side.

(2) Although the Defendant carried a bridged the victim’s breath, it was an act to take the damaged person into the earth in order to have the injured person punished for the Defendant’s breathing, and thus, it does not violate the social rules and regulations.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and legal principles, in particular, according to the defendant's investigative agency and the confession statement in the court of original instance, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed an assault by smugglinging the victim's left part of the victim's clock.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the argument of mistake of facts.

(2) The phrase “act that does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Thus, if a certain act satisfies the requirements such as the motive or legitimacy of the act, the means or method of the act, the reasonableness of the means or method, the balance of the legal interests of the protected interests and infringed interests, urgency, and supplement that there is no other means or method than the act, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005). According to evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the defendant took a bath against the illegal left-hand turn of the victim. Accordingly, the defendant was able to kill the victim through the open window with the victim’s hand.

According to this, the above act by the defendant cannot be deemed to be aimed at bringing the victim to the earth, and its motive or purpose.

arrow