The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant, as indicated in the instant facts charged, did not err by misapprehending the legal principles, and did not assault the victim’s face by drinking fatherb and drinking fat, as indicated in the instant facts charged. Even if such facts are recognized, it was found that the victim committed an indecent act against E, the Defendant’s wife, by committing an indecent act, and by pushing the F, which is the Defendant’s wife, until the police arrive, and thus, the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, the illegality of the Defendant’s
The judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to legitimate acts.
B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.
2. According to ex officio reversal records, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for a violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Formation of Organization, etc.) at the Seoul High Court on February 1, 2018, and the judgment became final and conclusive on March 29, 2018.
Since the crime of this case is one of the concurrent crimes subject to the above final judgment and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the punishment shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment in consideration of equity and equity in cases where a judgment is rendered at the same time pursuant to Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act. Since the application of the statutes of the lower court did not deal with such concurrent crimes, there
However, despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, the argument about the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles of the defendant is still subject to the judgment of the court.
3. The following facts or circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in determining the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and the legal doctrine, i.e., the victim, from the police stage to the court of the lower court, consistently shows the risk of putting a taxi in the vicinity of the taxi platform under the influence of alcohol at the time of the instant case.