Why is a man in his 50s who assaulted a subordinate not guilty on appeal?... Law "Legitimate purpose"

Assault by pulling arm of protesting subordinate... 1st trial ‘Fine of 300,000 won’
The appellate court said, “Defendant is responsible for sales and employee management…action to prevent confusion in the store.”

A man who was put on trial for assaulting a subordinate was sentenced to a fine in the first trial, but was acquitted on appeal.

On the 19th of last month, the 2nd Criminal Division of the Gwangju District Court ruled that Mr.

Mr. A was accused of assaulting Mr. B by pulling his arm during an argument with his subordinate, Mr. B, over business practices within the company last year.

The prosecution deemed that these charges were acceptable and summarily indicted Mr. A with a fine of 300,000 won, and the court also issued a summary order.

However, Mr. A refused to comply and requested a formal trial.

During the trial, Mr. A claimed that there was no intention of assault, saying that he only grabbed Mr. B's arm to move to another place and did not pull him.

The trial court sentenced a fine.

The court said, "If you look at the CCTV footage, you can see the defendant moving while holding the victim's arm. Since the victim was refusing the defendant's actions to take the victim out of the store, it is reasonable to believe that the assault was intentional."

However, the judgment of the second trial court was different.

The appellate court ruled, "At the time, another employee and a customer were consulting nearby, and if the customer heard the main content of the argument, it could have affected the conclusion of the contract. As a person responsible for sales and employee management, the defendant's actions were justified in that the purpose of the defendant's actions was to calm the victim and take him outside to prevent disruption or confusion in business."

He added, "The extent of the use of tangible force was not significant when he grabbed the victim's arm once to express his intention to go out with him and then let go."

Attorney Jeong-Hoon Kang of Daeryun Law Firm, who represented Mr. A in the appeal trial, explained, "Whether or not a specific act constitutes self-defense is judged based on the legitimacy of the purpose and the reasonableness of the means. Based on Mr. A's duties and the circumstances of the burial, we were able to obtain a not guilty verdict by emphasizing that there was no intention to attack."

#Accident #Assault on subordinate #Not guilty on appeal #Gwangju

Park Seok-ho (haitai2000@ikbc.co.kr)

[View full article]
Why is a man in his 50s who assaulted a subordinate found not guilty on appeal?...Law "legitimate purpose" (shortcut)