beta
Text
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles regarding the act of self-defense or legitimate acts, the Defendant committed an assault against the victim C with his own title and assaulted, and did not commit an assault against C as described in this part of the facts charged. Even if the fact of assault was recognized, it merely resisted and passively resisted that C’s body during the process of making the Defendant out humbling and taking out humbs to the degree that she could not have hidden, and thus, constitutes a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, or by misapprehending the legal principles on self-defense or legitimate acts. 2) The Defendant committed an assault against the victim E with the victim, and the Defendant merely h’s her husband’s her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her humb and her humb, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant committed an assault, even if the Defendant’s her her her her her her act constitutes a legitimate act.
B. The lower court’s sentence on the assertion of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. On the ground of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court’s judgment: (a) on the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court and the Defendant’s statement in the police statement in C to the effect that: (a) the Defendant committed assault against C’s bridge, distribution, and backing the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the lower court; and (b) the Defendant’s legal statement in the lower court to the effect that C attempted to see C’s back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of