beta
Text
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (as to the acquittal portion) were unable to freely move to the bridge due to the disorder on the bridge, and at the time of the instant case, the Defendant and C continued to dispute at least about 5 to 10 minutes.
Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes an attack that is not a defense, and such act does not constitute self-defense because there is no reasonable ground to do so.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant on the injury of C is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (including four million won of a fine) is unreasonable as it is excessively unhutiled.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles
A. On August 25, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 22:00 on August 25, 2010, while drinking e and drinking in G restaurant located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City F, the victim C (45 years of age) who is the husband of E was found to have been found to have been frighted by a bluoring so that he was found to have the Defendant; (b) fluoring the victim’s e and fluoring the victim’s bluor; and (c) fluoring the victim over the bottom of the bluoral body that requires treatment for about 56 days.
B. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s primary assertion that he did not exercise any tangible power against C for the following reasons, but the Defendant’s act constitutes legitimate self-defense as an act to defend the present infringement of his own life and body, and thus, acquitted the Defendant.
Witness
C according to C’s legal statement and witness E’s legal statement, ① around 22:00 on August 25, 2010, the Defendant was drinking with E and drinking, a spouse of the de facto marriage, at the floor seat of G cafeteria located in F in Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Nam-gu. ② He and resisted by C as being witness and the Defendant’s side, and the Defendant stated as “Iskin,” and the Defendant’s “Iskin,” and the Defendant’s “Iskin,” and ③ Iskin, where C was being examined during a dispute.