2017No233

A

Defendant

Periodicalmen (prosecutions) and Red Civils (Public Trial)

Law Firm (LLC) N

Attorney O, P, Q

Daegu District Court Decision 2016 High Court Decision 2685 Decided May 26, 2017

January 19, 2018

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The upper part of the victim D’s upper part was fluort with the Defendant and the victim, and the victim was fluort with face side, etc. As such, there was no intent to injure the Defendant. Even if the Defendant committed assault to the extent that he was fluoring clothes of the victim in the above process, there was no possibility that the Defendant could have predicted the result of the injury.

B. The Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act by the victim, who is willing to leave the president’s room, and the Defendant’s act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act.

2. Determination

A. Whether an injury was intentional or injured;

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, it is sufficiently acknowledged that the defendant intentionally saw the injured victim as stated in the facts charged and caused the upper part of the above-mentioned heat. The court below's judgment to the same effect is sufficient.

The decision is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

① At around 10:20 on September 19, 2016, the victim made a consistent statement from the investigative agency to the court of the court below on the part of the crime to the effect that “after completing the entire meeting of the entire assigned position, the victim was able to see that the Defendant was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see that he was able to see,” and that she was 6,7 times on the face of drinking, and that the victim was able to see that she was able to see that she was able to increase her speech since she was able to see several minutes after the meeting of the assigned position.”

The victim received treatment by visiting the RP on the day of the instant case. According to the fact-finding inquiry inquiry reply with the RP on September 19, 2016, the date of the instant case, the victim received treatment for the outpatients, and the treatment for the victim stated that “from 10:0:0 p.m. to 20:0 p.m. on September 19, 2016, the victim stated that “at least 10:0 p.m. to her face for drinking at the workplace (the patient’s statement), her to her to her to her to her to 3cm,” and that “the treatment confirmation prepared by the doctor S of the instant hospital on September 23, 2016, her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her to her face.”

① The Defendant asserts to the effect that “the Defendant and the victim made conversations at the president room and prevented the Defendant from getting the entrance by hand and leaving the entrance. In order to get out of the entrance, the Defendant: (a) knife the victim’s grandchildren and was pushed off with each other; (b) the victim was transferred to the president room; and (c) the victim’s knife’s knife was faced with the victim’s knife at the president room in the process; and (d) the victim’s knife was knife at the president room in the process; (b) the victim’s knife was knife from before entering the president room; and (c) several knife was no more than one time before entering the president room; and (d) the Defendant and the victim did not appear to have a knife the victim’s knife at a reasonable distance between the president room and the entrance.” However, the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant and the victim could not appear within the president’s k.

5. As long as it is acknowledged that the defendant used violence against the victim as stated in the facts charged, the defendant's assertion that the defendant was merely infusing clothes of the victim and that there was no possibility of predicting the injury cannot be accepted.

B. Whether the act constitutes self-defense or legitimate act

Unless there exist special circumstances such as: (a) an ordinary act of attack and defense was conducted between the fighting matchers; and (b) an act of attack and defense was conducted simultaneously; and (c) an act of attack and defense was in the nature of both sides, the act of attack and defense was conducted simultaneously; and (d) an act of attack and the other party’s exercise of force as a means of resistance to protect himself/herself from such attack and to escape therefrom, barring special circumstances, such act of either party cannot be deemed as a legitimate act for defense or self-defense (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do13927, Dec. 8, 2011).

In full view of the Defendant’s assault behavior, degree of injury to the victim, situation before and after the commission of the crime, etc., it is reasonable to view that the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, committed an act of attacking the victim’s face on several occasions by drinking against the Defendant and cutting the chest over the victim’s face, in excess of the victim’s passive defense against unjust attack, and that it does not constitute a passive defensive act that does not violate social rules. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s above assertion constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

The presiding judge, the senior judge;

delay by the judge

Judges Bo Young-man