logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.29 2019노4577
폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

The defendant's act of assault around October 2017 constitutes legitimate act or self-defense by defending against the victim's failure.

On March 10, 2018, the Defendant did not assault the victim as described in this part of the facts charged.

In May 8, 2018, it is self-defense that the defendant's use of violence on May 8, 2018, in excess of the floor in the course of preventing the victim from taking a cell phone.

Judgment

An act of assaulting around October 2017 refers to an act that does not contravene social rules as stipulated in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. Thus, if a certain act is deemed an act of assault, which is deemed to be an active and passive defensive act that can take place under the circumstances of social ethics or social norms, because the motive or purpose of the act is justifiable and reasonable, and the legal interests protected by the law and the legal interests are balanced, it shall be deemed to be an act

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Do11204 Decided March 27, 2014, etc.). The health stand back to the instant case, and according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the fact that the victim committed an assault against the victim, i.e., the victim’s arms to stop and live together with the victim’s fighting, and the victim’s arms to live together.” The Defendant’s act was committed with the victim’s intent of attack rather than with the passive defensive act, and its means or method cannot be deemed reasonable. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the assault committed on March 10, 2018, the court below recognized the fact that the defendant, who prevents the victim from getting out of apartment stairs, had the victim go beyond the upper floor by body.

arrow