2016Gohap624 Violence, etc.

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

Park Jong-dae (Public Prosecution) and Park Jong-jin (Public Trial)

Law Firm E (private ships for defendant A, B, and C)

[Defendant-Appellee]

Law Firm G, Attorneys H (private ships for defendant D)

April 14, 2017

Defendants are not guilty.

The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is published.

1. Summary of the facts charged

around 03:00 on July 9, 2016, the Defendants were the same kind of drinking, and Defendant A and B performed the same kind of drinking, Defendant C alone, and Defendant D performed the same kind of drinking as Defendant K(34 years of age) for the victim who is the husband.

Around that time, the victim started to scule the sculbling by drinking alcohol, assaulting the Defendants at the above main point, and sculing.

At around 03:12 on the same day, the Defendants conspired with the victim to suppress the above movement of the victim, and the Defendant A was unable to divide the part on the right side of the victim's body into two arms and body weight. Defendant B could not divide the part on the left side of the victim's body in the same way. Defendant C could not divide the part on the left side of the victim's body in the same way. Defendant C did not cause the part on the part on the part on the victim's body in the same way. Defendant D committed an assault to prevent the victim from putting a bridge on the left side of the victim in the same way, and caused the victim's death as a brupt.

2. Defendants and defense counsel's assertion

A. Defendant A, B, and C

① The Defendants’ act constitutes self-defense and thus illegal. Even if not, in light of the circumstances of the case, it constitutes excessive defense under Article 21(2) and (3) of the Criminal Act.

② There was no likelihood of death for the Defendants.

B. Defendant D

(1) The defendant is merely unable to attach a bridge to the left-hand side of a victim with the intention to make the victim, who is her husband, and did not have the intention of assault.

(2) The defendant has no predictability of death.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.

1) While the victim, the defendant D, and the non-indicted L were under drinking alcohol together, the defendant D was faced with the victim’s house, but the victim did not comply with the request and the victim was punished, and the defendant D, under the influence of alcohol, was at the time of the victim’s left side.

2) The victim, under the influence of alcohol, abused Defendant D, such as plucking, plucking, etc. of Defendant D’s arms, and plucked, clicking L. The Defendant C, alone, flicking the foregoing light view and hicking with the victim.

3) When Defendant C prevented the victim who Defendant C want to move to L, the victim plucked or plucked up the arms of Defendant C, and Defendant A told the victim. The victim committed an act, such as spawning, walking the table, walking the table, and noise to M who is the main agent in the main place in the state of interest. Defendant A and C made efforts to control these victims, and try to do so.

4) While Mdo Do B B B B B, the victim was trying to file a petition for the victim, but the victim got sound and went to M. The Defendant C prevented the victim. As the victim was the victim, the victim’s neck was exposed to the Defendant C’s body, and the risk of putting the victim into the body of the Defendant C was incurred. Defendant A tried to witness this luminous and to stop the victim by taking the victim’s neck back from the back of the victim’s body. At the same time, Defendant B and D told the victim at the same time. In the process, the victim and the Defendant A came to go beyond the victim’s body.

5) Although it was prevented Defendant A and B from taking place, Defendant A was in excess of the victim’s power. Accordingly, Defendant A was unable to take place on the part of the victim’s right part and shoulder part, Defendant B’s left part and shoulder part of the victim, Defendant C’s aid or part of the victim’s right part, Defendant C’s aid or right part of the victim’s port part, and Defendant D’s left part of the victim’s bridge.

6) The Defendants: (a) prevented the victims from 3:12:00 to 3:00 :00 :00 am; (b) in the process, Defendant C and D were in excess of the victim’s force.

7) The police officers in receipt of the M’s report arrived at the main point of 3:17:00 a.m. and the Defendants arrive at the main point of 3:0 p.m., and the Defendants were flicked. At the time, the police officers reported the victim to 119. The police officers reported the victim on the 119th p.m. because of the lack of awareness. As a result, the Defendant A and the slope N, who attempted to stop pulmonary resuscitation, performed cardiopulmonary resuscitation again. The 119 first responder in receipt of the report, and transferred the victim to the emergency hospital, but the victim died.

8) The victim’s height is the strong body size of 186 cm and 153 km. As a result of the autopsy, the victim’s ethyl alcohol level and ethyl alcohol level of 0.209 % and 0.183 %, and the cause of the victim’s death was found to be a tension and tension. The victim’s death was revealed to be a tension and tension. In the case of tension and tension, it would act as a facilitating person.

B. Determination

1) The crime of assault under Article 260 of the Criminal Act refers to the exercise of tangible force against a person’s body, and the exercise of such tangible force refers to the physical force causing physical pain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5716, Jan. 10, 2003). Even if physical force is an act, if it cannot be deemed an unlawful attack against a person’s body, it cannot be deemed that the crime of assault under Article 260(1) of the Criminal Act constitutes a crime of assault (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 86Do1796, Oct. 14, 198; 86Do1796, Oct. 14, 200; 2014Hun-Ma818, Jun. 25, 2015).

2) According to the facts acknowledged earlier, the victim abused the Defendant D, who was the wife under the influence of alcohol at the time, committed abnormal actions, such as assaulting L and the Defendant C, and the above victim was unable to restrain the Defendant A and B alone, and the Defendant C and D appear to have controlled the victim until the police officer took place. Thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act was an unlawful attack on the body of the victim, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants used the victim or committed the act of assault against the Defendants.

3) It is recognized that the Defendants used physical force against the victim during the process of speaking the victim’s distress. The above Defendants’ act constitutes an assault, and even if the Defendants’ intent to commit assault was acknowledged, as seen earlier, assaulted not only the victim of physical size of 186cc in height weight of 153km, but also assaulted Defendant D and a third party, who was his wife under the influence of alcohol, such as plucking of Defendant C’s timber and plucking of it, resulting in a dangerous situation.

It did not stop. If so, the above Defendants’ act committed in the process of suppressing it is reasonable to the extent permitted by social norms in view of the motive or the situation at the time. Thus, it constitutes an act that does not violate social rules.

4) In addition, considering the circumstances of the instant case, such as the fact that the victim’s physical strength was the centerr, and the Defendants only committed an act to the extent that the Defendants took advantage of the victim’s arms and legs to prevent them from putting the victim’s arms and legs, it would be very exceptional that the Defendants’ act would cause the victim’s quality death, which is difficult to expect from the perspective of the general public. Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Defendants could have predicted the result of the death.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary of the judgment is announced in accordance with Article 58(2) of the Criminal Act.

The senior judge of the presiding judge;

Judge Muma decoration

Judges Park Jae-in