The case recognizing excessive defense

On the ground of the fighting of the victim's fighting, the victim has fledd several times, but the victim has fleded, but she continues to drive away, "I am before and after her," "I am her criminal who is a criminal of a political party," and "I am her by showing her power, it cannot be the other party at night and could not escape from his her son." Thus, if the defendant was placed in the back main machine to face the crisis and caused the death of the victim, the defense of the defendant is deemed to exceed the extent of the damage suffered by the defendant and the result of the victim's death. Thus, if the defendant was placed in the back main machine in order to face the crisis and caused the death of the victim, the defense of the defendant is excessive defense.

Article 21 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293 Form 396 Decided October 30, 1959

Defendant

Defendant and Prosecutor

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (69Da1622 delivered on July 1, 200)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

One hundred days of detention days before the sentence of the original judgment shall be included in the original sentence.

This judgment shall suspend the execution of the punishment for three years from the date of confirmation.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant is as follows: first, the victim non-indicted 1 was wraped with the non-indicted 2, and thus the defendant was detained. The above non-indicted 1, who was towed by the defendant's string, moved to the string, was unable to set up against the defendant's force, and the defendant could not have been able to escape, and therefore, the defendant was not able to do so. Thus, it is argued that this is a self-defense and is not a crime. Second, the sentencing of the court below is unfair because it is too too much.

Therefore, according to the court below's decision as to the defendant's assertion of the above self-defense, the court below did not have any deliberation and decision as to this, since the defendant made a statement to the same purport as the above grounds for appeal as to the occurrence of this case in the court below.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed by applying Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows, since the judgment of the court below is unfair in this regard and the defendant's assertion is with merit.

Criminal facts and internal evidence recognized by the court of the trial against the defendant are as stated in the corresponding column in the judgment of the court below, and they are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

According to the reasoning of the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of self-defense, upon examining the circumstances in which the Defendant committed the instant crime against the victim Nonindicted Party 1, the Defendant continued to use the Defendant’s secret defense at the house of Nonindicted Party 3 located in the Dongdong-gu, 1969, on July 16, 1969, on the ground that Nonindicted Party 2 and Nonindicted Party 1 were dead while drinking together with Nonindicted Party 1, the victim Nonindicted Party 1 led Nonindicted Party 2 out of the drinking house and ring the name of the Defendant. The above Nonindicted Party 1 meted the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant was able to keep out of the drinking house, and the Defendant could not be held out of the Defendant’s secret defense as well as the Defendant’s secret defense because it did not constitute an unlawful act of self-defense, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the Defendant’s act of self-defense at the time of leaving the Defendant’s secret defense as well as the Defendant’s secret defense.

As the court below's decision falls under Article 259 (1) of the Criminal Act, since the defendant's order falls under the so-called excessive defense as acknowledged above, the punishment shall be mitigated pursuant to Article 21 (2) of the same Act, so the defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for one year and six months within the scope of a statutory mitigation pursuant to Article 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and 110 days out of the number of detention days before sentencing shall be included in the above principal sentence in accordance with Article 57 (1) of the same Act, and there are reasons to take into account the circumstances, the execution of the sentence shall be suspended for three years from the date this decision becomes final and conclusive pursuant to Article 62 of the same Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)