logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.04.30 2018노2699
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles have been a civil fact once after the victim’s breathation. However, this is a self-defense or legitimate act that was made in the process of setting up against the victim’s obstruction of business without any authority.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. To recognize a certain act of judgment of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles as self-defense, such act must be reasonable as it is for the purpose of defending the current unfair infringement of one’s own or another’s legal interests.

Whether a defense act is socially reasonable or not shall be determined by taking into account all specific circumstances, such as the type, degree, method of infringement, and the type, degree, etc. of legal interests to be infringed by the act of infringement, as well as the kind and degree of infringement.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3606, Nov. 13, 2003). Meanwhile, “act that does not violate the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall legal order, or the social ethics or social norms surrounding it.

Whether a certain act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms, and the illegality is excluded, must be determined individually by considering the purpose and reasonable aspects under specific circumstances.

To recognize such a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method of the act; balance of the legal interests between the protected interests and the infringed interests; fourth urgency; Fifth, supplementaryness that there is no other means or method than the act.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do3000, Sept. 26, 2003). The lower court is based on the evidence duly adopted and examined as follows.

arrow