logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.07.22 2016노229
퇴거불응등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant was subject to intimidation from a person who was in possession of a large amount of fluority at the time of the instant case, and thus, (b) the Defendant’s act was a justifiable act consistent with the social norms, and thus, did not constitute a crime; (c) the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts and affected the judgment.

2. “Act which does not contravene social norms” as prescribed in Article 20 of the Criminal Act refers to an act that is acceptable in light of the overall spirit of legal order or the social ethics or social norms surrounding the act. To recognize such a justifiable act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance between the protected interest and the infringed interest, urgency, and the supplement of the said act, etc. must be satisfied.

In the lower court, the Defendant alleged the same purport as the alleged mistake of the above facts. The lower court stated that there was no victim and witness in the 16th day of the judgment that the victim and witness did not board the victim. In full view of the Defendant’s criminal history and content, method and means of the crime, degree of damage and the situation at the time, etc., the Defendant’s act does not constitute a justifiable act because it is not reasonable to use the means or method of the act and it does

The defendant's argument was rejected.

The judgment below

Examining the text closely and closely, the lower court’s determination is sufficiently acceptable, and in addition, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., (i) the Defendant was demanded to leave the victim’s factory by entering the victim’s factory without permission, and (ii) the Defendant was in a situation of intimidation and threatening the victim at the time, thereby preserving the scene.

arrow