logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.11.06 2015노1433
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes amended by Act No. 10210, Mar. 31, 2010

c. The term "specific family method" (hereinafter referred to as "specific family method").

Article 5-4(5) (hereinafter “instant legal provision”)

(2) The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, inasmuch as the statutory penalty is set as a term of imprisonment with prison labor for an indefinite term or for more than three years, and thus, violates the fundamental principles and equality principles of the Constitution guaranteeing human dignity and value. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the facts charged in this case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the defendant submitted a written opinion to the court below that there is a high possibility that the defendant would suffer from ADHD (overficial disorder) or shocking disorder due to the degradation of function of dral leaves, and the defendant's defense counsel at the trial date alleged to the effect that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability at the time of committing the crime in this case. This constitutes a statement of fact that constitutes a legal ground for reduction or exemption of punishment under Article 323(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and thus, the court below erred by omitting the judgment, even though it should have stated it.

In this respect, the judgment of the court below can no longer be maintained.

On the other hand, the defendant and his defense counsel did not state mental and physical disability claims in the grounds of appeal, and they were not timely filed for the grounds of appeal.

arrow