logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.08.18 2015노681
주거침입등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant: (a) was required to urgently perform construction works on the building indicated in the facts charged in the Defendant’s possession in which the victim was living; (b) due to fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung fung; (c) the victim continued to cooperate with the Corporation;

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 2,00,000) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in the lower court’s judgment, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the ground that the Defendant’s act did not meet the requirements for a justifiable act or an emergency escape, considering the circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court under the title of “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

2) The "act that does not violate the social norms" under Article 20 of the relevant legal principles refers to the act that can be accepted in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it. Whether certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms and thus, the illegality should be determined individually by rationally and reasonably considering the specific circumstances. Thus, in order to recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: (a) legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; (b) reasonableness of the means or method; (c) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; (d) balance between the interests of protection and infringement; and (e) supplementary nature that there is no other means or method than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do4688, Sept. 30, 2005).

arrow