Cases where the act of assault against a lineal ascendant or descendant is recognized as self-defense;

In light of the circumstances, not only the legal interests of the defendant's body but also his father's status, but also the act of defending the present infringement of legal interests, the defendant's act constitutes self-defense by a considerable reason for not being able to avoid the attack against the victim.

Article 21 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Attorneys Kim Jong-chul, Madio (Korean)

Daegu High Court Decision 73No37 delivered on August 30, 1973

We reverse the original judgment and the first instance judgment on the defendant's act of assaulting death.

The appeal against the defendant is dismissed as to the charge of not guilty and interference with the autopsy of the deceased and the death or injury.

The grounds of appeal by the defense counsel Kim Jong-chul and Dong Jin-ok are examined in full.

First of all, judgment on the grounds of appeal against the crime of assault and death is made.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance maintained by the court below, during the period of July 13, 1972, when the above non-party deceased (the deceased 21 year old) was frighting to ordinary parents, the non-party deceased 1 was under the influence of alcohol on July 13, 1972, and returned to his house with his house, and he returned to his house. The plaintiff 1 was found to have caused the death of the above defendant as a so-called so-called so-called so-called the death of the defendant's body in his house. The plaintiff 21 year old, 199, 1999, 20 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 3 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 3 years old, and 3 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 2 years old, 3 years old, and 3 years old, 199.

However, according to the testimony of the non-party witness of the court below and the statement of the defendant at the prosecutor's office, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense and constitutes a crime against the defendant's victim, who is his father, and in the surrounding area, the defendant was faced with the defendant, while the victim tried to commit an assault against him by driving away from the door. In such a case, the victim's act of attempting to commit an assault with verbal abuse which is unable to be frighten from the door to the outside of the door. In addition, in light of the circumstances indicated in the record as well as the legal interests of the defendant's body and the legal interests as to his father's status, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act constitutes self-defense and constitutes a crime against the defendant's victim, so long as the act of assault does not constitute a crime, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the death of the victim's body, and therefore, it cannot be reversed as a result of the crime of assault against the victim's head.

The judgment of the court below on the crime of interference with inspection by the following person is lawful and there is no illegality, and therefore there is no illegality.

On the part of the defendant's death or injury, it is recognized that it is sufficient to directly decide by the party members in accordance with Article 391 and Article 396 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The facts charged against the defendant are as follows: "At the time of appearance, the defendant was given to the non-party 21 who is an employee engaged in agriculture," and "after growth," he takes the name of the defendant who is his father at each time, and "packers find his father who is not his father," and "at around 19:30 on July 13, 1972, he did not know the death of the defendant at the same time as the defendant's entrance, and it did not cause the death of the defendant, and the defendant's act of causing the death of the defendant to go beyond his own body to go together, and the defendant's act of causing the death of the defendant to go together with his own body to go together with his own body, and the defendant's act of causing the death of the defendant to go together with his own body to go together with his own body, and the defendant's act of causing the death of the defendant to go together with his own body, and then the defendant's act of causing the death of the defendant to go together with his own body."

Therefore, the appeal as to the obstruction of the autopsy by the assent of all participating judges is dismissed, and the judgment of the first instance court is reversed as to the death resulting from violence. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Red Man-Man (Presiding Justice)