[1] The elements for establishing a legitimate act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code

[2] The case holding that an act constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Code

[1] Whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for the exclusion of illegality should be reasonably decided in accordance with specific cases. To be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; legitimacy of the means or method of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; formation of the protected legal interests and the right of infringement of the law; fourth urgency; fifth urgency; and fifth supplementary requirements that there are no other means or method than the act.

[2] The case holding that in case where the defendant's act of violence was committed during night in order to comply with the defendant's accusation, and the victim who wants to open the door was injured by each injury on the right 4 balance, such act constitutes a justifiable act because it is difficult to view it as an act of illegality exceeding the permissible extent under social norms, in light of the time and place of the harmful act of the defendant's act, its details, motive, method, robbery, and the defendant's intent and purpose, etc., and thus, it is difficult to view it as an act of illegality.

[1] Article 20 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 20 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 92Do1520 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 3052), Supreme Court Decision 96Do214 delivered on November 12, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 3651), Supreme Court Decision 95Do1964 delivered on June 27, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2221), Supreme Court Decision 97Do337 delivered on October 13, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2720), Supreme Court Decision 98Do1869 delivered on February 23, 199 (Gong199, 5999) and Supreme Court Decision 9Do209305 delivered on February 25, 2005 (Gong1999, 99)

Defendant

Prosecutor

Daejeon District Court Decision 9No262 delivered on August 26, 1999

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Whether a certain act constitutes a justifiable act as a ground for the exclusion of illegality should be reasonably decided depending on specific cases. To be recognized as a justifiable act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; third, the formation of legal interests protected by law and the right of legal interests infringed; fourth urgency; fifth, there is no other means or method than the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Do1869, Feb. 23, 199; 92Do1520, Sept. 25, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found the victim's complaint based on the following facts: (i) the defendant and the victim knew of the non-indicted 1's visit and temporarily conspired around July 1997 through the introduction of the non-indicted 1's accommodation; (ii) the victim conspired to the Daejeon District Prosecutors' Office about marriage with the defendant; (iii) the victim's money was stolen by means of lending money and not paying money; and (iv) the victim abused the defendant with his name, but the victim was accused of fraud and assault; (iv) the victim was appealed again upon the complaint; (v) the victim was sent a notice to the above prosecutor's office to be present by 10:0 on March 4, 1998, on the ground that it was difficult to view the victim's visit and the victim was not guilty, and (v) the victim did not go beyond the above 20th day after the victim was asked to undergo an investigation by the court of prosecutor's office, and (v) the victim did not look at the victim's door to the above 20th day.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the grounds of appeal

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

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)