beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In light of the fact that Defendant A (unfair punishment) is in an economically difficult situation, the sentence of the lower court sentencing a fine of one million won is too unreasonable.
B. Defendant B (Definite) is merely a passive act of defense against Defendant B who committed an assault to himself. As such, Defendant B’s act constitutes self-defense.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby misunderstanding the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.
2. Determination
A. On July 10, 1995, Defendant A received a summary order of KRW 500,00 from the Seoul Central District Court to a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and had the record of criminal punishment several times for the same crime. The lower court appears to have reduced the fine amount of the summary order in consideration of the circumstances alleged by Defendant A. In light of the motive and background of the instant crime, the circumstances before and after the instant crime, the degree of damage, and other various matters stipulated in Article 51 of the Criminal Act, which are the conditions for sentencing, such as the records and arguments of this case, and the character and conduct of Defendant A, as well as the environment, the lower court’s sentence is not determined to be unreasonable even considering the circumstances asserted in the grounds for appeal. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.
B. In a case where it is reasonable to view that the perpetrator’s act of determining the mistake of facts as to Defendant B was at the first place with the intent of an attack rather than for defending the victim’s unjust attack, and that the act was committed against it, it cannot be deemed as self-defense, since the act has the nature of the act of attack at the same time as the act of attack.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4934, Jun. 25, 2004). The following can be recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.