[1] Whether an act of attack committed for the purpose of withdrawing a part after escaping from the act of infringement constitutes self-defense (negative)

[2] The case holding that the act of attacking after escaping from the act of infringement constitutes an act of attacking after escaping from the act of infringement

[1] It is not an inevitable act to defend the victim's right against an act of infringement, but an act of attack from the purpose of unafforing after escaping from the act of infringement does not constitute self-defense.

[2] The case holding that the act of attacking a part after escaping from the act of infringement does not constitute self-defense

[1] Article 21 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 21 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 85Do2642 delivered on February 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 483)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-woo

Supreme Court Decision 95Do1721 delivered on September 29, 1995

Daejeon District Court Decision 95No1560 delivered on December 27, 1995

The appeal shall be dismissed. The ninety days out of detention days after the appeal shall be included in the original sentence.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and the public defender are also examined.

It is not an inevitable act to defend the victim's right against an act of infringement, but an act of attack from the purpose of releasing after escaping from such act of infringement does not constitute self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 85Do2642, Feb. 11, 1986).

The court below rejected the defendant's allegation that the above non-indicted 2 did not violate the legal principles as to the defendant's act of self-defense on the ground that the non-indicted 2 did not recognize the defendant's allegation that the above non-indicted 2 did not violate the law since the non-indicted 3 did not know that the non-indicted 20,000 won did not go through the way to prevent the release of the discharge, and the non-indicted 2 did not go through verbal abuse, and the defendant's window was used as an incidental to the defendant's room, and the defendant's window was separated from it, and the defendant's window was separated from it, and the defendant did not know that the non-indicted 2 did not go against the defendant's escape, and the non-indicted 1,2 (tentatively omitted) and the defendant did not appear to have committed an act of self-defense, in light of the legal principles as seen above, the court below's decision was just and without merit in finding the defendant's allegation that the non-indicted 2's act of self-defense was not committed.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and part of the detention days after the appeal is included in the original sentence of the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)