The case holding that the act was not contrary to corporate rules

When a taxi driver intends to start a taxi at the request of a passenger, the victim's act is deemed to be an act that does not violate social rules, if the driver starts the taxi and operates the taxi while the driver starts the taxi with the driver's hand away from the end of the marital fighting with verbal abuse, leaving the driver's body into the taxi, making the breath of the driver's body into the taxi, making the breath of the breath, making the breath's body into the breath, making the breath of the breath's body into the breath, making the breath of the breath

Article 20 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 89No6 delivered on June 16, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, we affirm the fact-finding by the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no violation of the rules

2. As recognized by the court below, the defendant tried to start the taxi at the request of the non-indicted 1 on the taxi driving by the victim, and the victim attempted to have the non-indicted 1, who escaped from the taxi, forced him to go into the taxi when he prevented escape at the end of his husband's wrapping end, together with verbal abuse, was seriously shaking the defendant's body in the taxi, making the defendant's breath into the taxi so that he could fall into the additional breath by making the defendant breath by hand. If the defendant started the taxi and operated the taxi by taking the victim's hand, the defendant's act is not in violation of the social rules.

The court below's determination of the above facts and the decision that the defendant's appeal constitutes self-defense cannot be deemed to be correct, but the conclusion of the court below's decision that the defendant's appeal constitutes self-defense can be maintained for the same reason as the above mentioned, and such mistake does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, we cannot accept the appeal that attacks the judgment of the court below on the premise that the defendant's act constitutes a crime at the original time.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)