정당방위와 제3자

Abstract

The behavior to defend the present illegal violation of self-benefit of law or others' benefit of law is recognized as the self-defense against the violator. In case that the defense result happens to the third man except the violator, the self-defense is not admitted for the third man. We need to discuss these kinds of issue in terms of self-defense and urgent necessity and examine case by case. The first type shows that when the violator who takes advantage of the third man's belongings makes an attack, a defense action by the defender damages the third man's belongings. This means that the defender damages the third man's belongings. Because the third man's belongings form a part of violation action, the self-defense is recognized in this case. The second type is that in order to avoid the violator's attack, the defender damages the third man's belongings by using them. In this case, the law-benefit violation of the third man is caused only by the defender's action. The defender's behavior is to escape danger by the violator's attack. The relationship between the defender and the third man corresponds to the urgent escape. The third type indicates that the defender's behavior happens to the third man other than the violator. For example, A who takes a knife attacks B, and B throws a stone to A. However, B does damage to C who walk across the street accidentally. In this case, when the self-defense against the violator is concluded, the urgent escape is admitted for the third man. When the self-defense against the violator does not happen, it is regarded as the criminal negligence.