logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.01.29 2014도15900
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

Criminal facts have to be proved to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt (Article 307(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act). However, the selection of evidence and probative value of evidence conducted on the premise of fact finding belong to the free judgment of the fact-finding court.

(1) On May 12, 2014, the lower court determined that: (a) on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the Defendant committed each of the larcenys in this case on the ground that (i) on May 12, 2014, the Defendant was objectively aware of another person’s property, and (ii) on the ground that each of the larcenys in this case was committed through the realization of habituality, and rejected the allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing this; and (ii) the Defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes

Considering that the appeal was not in a state or weak, it rejected the allegation in the grounds for appeal regarding mental or physical disorder.

The allegation in the grounds of appeal disputing such a judgment by the lower court is merely an error of the lower court’s determination of evidence and probative value, which belong to the free judgment by the fact-finding court.

In addition, even when examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted, there is no error of exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence or exceeding the judgment on mental disorder.

Meanwhile, under Article 383 subparagraph 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act, only in cases where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment or imprisonment without prison labor for not less than ten years has been imposed, an appeal on the grounds of unfair sentencing is allowed. Thus, in this case where a more minor sentence has been imposed on the defendant, the argument that the sentencing of the

In addition, a judgment shall be sentenced after the period of suspension of execution expires.

arrow