beta
Text
All appeals by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The defendant and his defense counsel (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) committed a assault against three persons, including G, while the defendant was committing a assault against G, not committing a assault against G as described in the facts charged, and even if the defendant committed a assault against G.
Even if the defendant continued assault from G's daily behaviors, this act is a legitimate defense or an emergency evacuation. This act is a legitimate defense or an emergency evacuation.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on party defense and emergency evacuation, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
B. In light of the fact that the crime of this case by the prosecutor (unlawful in sentencing) was committed by the Defendant, not the police, to enter a store operated by C in order to control the forged trademark attached by the Defendant, and the nature of the crime is not good, it is unreasonable for the lower court to impose a fine of KRW 300,000 on the part of the Defendant, who was an employee, to have committed the crime of this case.
2. Determination
A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, stated that the victim stated in the investigative agency that “the Defendant was unable to enter the shop without permission, and the Defendant was pushed off by using the body of the left part,” and that “A witness J also made a statement consistent with the above statement by stating that “I am out of the room even if I am on the ground of son, I am out of the room, and am out of the room and am off even if I am on the ground of son, I am out of the room, and am off. I am off the victim.” ② According to the E CCTV video that was taken on the site of the instant case, the victim actively asserted against the victim that the Defendant would not enter around 12:23:07 on the day of the instant case.”