Whether the act of assault to spawn and social rules have been violated;

Even if it is intended to admonish the subordinate, so long as the act of assault was shown to have exceeded the scope of the warning and has been injured thereby, it cannot be said that the illegality is excluded as an act that does not violate social norms.

Articles 20 and 262 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Park Jong-tae

High Military Court Decision 83 High Military Port No. 426 delivered on February 7, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant and his/her defense counsel are also examined.

In light of the evidence cited by the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below after examining the records, it cannot be recognized that the court below erred in violation of the rules of evidence or in incomplete deliberation against the disposition of the court below which recognized the fact that the defendant and the co-defendant of the court of first instance sustained injury by assaulting the victim. The court below did not regard the so-called "Co-defendant of the court of first instance" of the defendant as a co-principal relationship with the defendant, and it does not constitute a case where it is impossible to distinguish the result of the above injury from one of the independent assault acts of the defendant and the co-defendant of the court of first instance in accordance with the example of co-principal under Article 263 of the Criminal Act. Thus, it is obvious in its judgment that the court below was the co-principal by conspiracy, and even if the defendant's motive for the crime of this case was for guiding the victim who was his father, the act of this case does not violate the rules of society and it does not violate the rules of society.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young