beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.21 2015노1327

사기등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (Obstruction of misunderstanding of Facts) Although the Defendant was spokeed with salted fish, there is no fact that the Defendant attempted to spoke the police officer due to the salted fish.

B. The Defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disability.

C. The lower court’s sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts in detail on the grounds that the Defendant had the same assertion as the grounds for appeal in this part, and on the grounds that the lower court stated the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail under the title of “judgment on the Defendant and

In comparison with records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it cannot be viewed that there is an error of mistake of facts as pointed out by the defendant.

The defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

3. In light of the motive and background of each of the instant crimes, the process of the crime, and the Defendant’s speech and behavior immediately after the crime acknowledged by the record as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it does not seem that the Defendant, under the influence of alcohol, did not have or lacks the ability to discern things or make decisions.

The defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

4. Judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing

A. The crime of this case is a case in which the defendant deceivings victims several times to obtain alcohol and food, thereby causing injury to the victims or abusive language, or obstructing police officers' performance of official duties in the process. It is not very good that the crime of this case is committed.

In addition, in light of the fact that the defendant continued to commit the crime of fraud since 2004, and even if he was sentenced to a similar crime, he repeatedly commits each of the crimes of this case during the period of repeated crime.