logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2017.06.02 2017노112
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주치상)등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (or violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) and the violation of Road Traffic Act (or violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes)

B. The sentence of the lower court (one million won) is too minor.

2. Determination

A. Collective opinions presented to the full bench about the recognition of facts in the criminal trial proceedings conducted in the form of a citizen participatory trial introduced to enhance the democratic legitimacy and trust of the judicial judgment regarding the assertion of facts have a recommended effect to assist the judge of the appellate court in finding facts under the principle of substantial direct deliberation and the principle of court-oriented trials. If a jury participated in the whole process of examination of facts, such as examination of witness witness, and the verdict of innocence issued by unanimous opinion as to the admission of evidence, such as the credibility of witness statement, and fact-finding, are adopted in conformity with the jury's appellate court's conviction, the first instance court's determination on the admission of evidence and fact-finding conducted through such procedure, is sufficient and clearly opposite to the above, through new examination of evidence in light of the purport and spirit of the principle of court-oriented trials, and the principle of court-oriented trials, and it is necessary to respect the witness's evidence lawfully admitted through the examination of witness, unless there are any circumstances that can clearly oppose the witness's new examination of evidence in the appellate court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do465.

arrow