logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노4838
상해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although the Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles was assaulted by the victim and set up against it, the lower court convicted the Defendant by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) against the Defendant claiming unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the fact-finding or misapprehension of legal principles, an attack and defense was conducted simultaneously between the fighting parties, and the defense was conducted simultaneously, and it is difficult to view that either party’s act constitutes an “political act” or “self-defense” for defense by leaving only one party’s act in the same nature as the attack at the same time.

However, even if they appear as if they were to fighting one another, in fact, one party unilaterally commits an illegal attack and the other party uses tangible power as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and escape therefrom, or as long as such act is not evaluated as a new active attack, its illegality is dismissed (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do12958, Feb. 11, 2010). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the fact that the defendant committed the same act as the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below is sufficiently recognized, and in particular, it is recognized that the defendant committed the act in this case with the victim, and it is difficult to view that the defendant's act in this case constitutes legitimate act or self-defense.

The defendant's assertion of mistake or misapprehension of legal principles is without merit.

Although the victim of the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing does not want the punishment of the defendant, the defendant has two criminal records of the same kind of fine, the defendant is a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act of 2011 (injury by a deadly weapon, etc.).

arrow