(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노4176 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.01.12 2017노4176

절도등

Text

The judgment below

The part concerning confiscation shall be reversed.

Seized evidence Nos. 1 and 3 shall be confiscated from the accused.

Reasons

1. A person who waives his/her judgment on appeal by the defendant is prohibited from re-appealing the case. According to the records, the defendant submitted the written application for appeal to the court below on September 11, 2017 regarding the judgment of the court below that was pronounced on September 8, 2017, and the prosecutor submitted the written application for appeal to the court below on September 12, 2017, and the defendant also submitted the written application for appeal to the court below on September 12, 2017, and the defendant submitted the written application for appeal to the court below on October 13, 2017.

In light of the method and purport of the written reason for appeal, it can be seen as a petition of appeal, but since the appeal was already waived and the period for filing an appeal has already expired, the decision of the court below to dismiss the defendant's appeal in accordance with Articles 362 (1), 360 and 354 of the Criminal Procedure Act with respect to the remaining part of the judgment below except for the part concerning confiscation should be decided. However, as long as a judgment is rendered on the prosecutor's appeal, it is decided to dismiss the defendant's appeal, without separately rejecting the defendant's appeal.

2. Of the lower judgment, Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act provides for “goods that have been, or are about to be, offered to criminal conduct” as objects that may be confiscated.

In this context, "goods provided for criminal conduct" means goods used for criminal conduct or conduct closely related to such conduct, and "goods to be provided for criminal conduct" means goods that have been prepared to be used for criminal conduct, but have not been actually used.

Even based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is not sufficient to recognize that the evidence Nos. 2 (V, Aphilopon, Ephilopon, Examination) offered or intended to be provided for the instant criminal act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, according to the agreement submitted by the defendant, No. 2 is among the crimes of this case.

참조조문

-형법 제48조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.02.08 2017노9084

-서울고등법원 2017.03.02 2016노4148

-부산지방법원 2017.12.07 2017노2087

-서울고등법원 2017.11.16 2017노2850

-창원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노3456