Whether the act of ppuri fluoring the body in order to avoid suffering from the loss of the body of the victim, constitutes a assault (negative)

In addition, even if the act of the victim's body is an assault, it cannot be deemed as an assault, and even if it constitutes an assault, the act of the victim's body is limited to the minimum defense necessary to protect himself/herself from an unlawful attack and escape from it, and it does not violate the social rules and thus, is not illegal.

Articles 20 and 260 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do1418 delivered on July 26, 1983, 85Do466 delivered on May 14, 1985

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Park Young-ho

Seoul High Court Decision 84No1910 delivered on July 11, 1985

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the defendant on the grounds that there is no evidence to prove the facts charged and added by the prosecutor at the court below for the preliminary charges added by the prosecutor at the court below, the facts charged, date, and place. As such, it can be acknowledged that the defendant's body in order to avoid this act is cut back from the door, and thereby, the victim's body was cut back to the above door. However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's body was cut back to the above door. However, under these circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's act was committed against the body of the victim in order to avoid suffering from the body of the victim, and that the defendant's act merely spreads the body of the victim's body cannot be deemed as violence, even if it constitutes assault, and even if it constitutes assault, the defendant's act was done to the minimum necessary to protect himself from the unlawful attack of the victim and to protect him, and thus, the defendant's act does not violate social rules, and there is no evidence to find illegality.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are acceptable and it cannot be said that there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or violation of the rules of evidence in the process or judgment of documentary evidence. The arguments are groundless.

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

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)