(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.01 2017노1584 | 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) 수원지방법원 2017.06.01 2017노1584

상습장물취득

Text

The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

seizure.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that Defendant A’s defense counsel recognized the mistake of Defendant A and reflected, and that Defendant A committed the instant crime for the livelihood of his family, etc., the sentence of the lower court that sentenced six months of imprisonment is too unreasonable.

B. In light of the fact that Defendant B recognized the mistake and against it, and that it is an economically difficult situation, the sentence of the lower court that sentenced to a fine of KRW 3,000,000 is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the reasons for appeal ex officio (Defendant A) ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal.

As stolen goods seized, the reason for return to the victim should be returned to the victim by judgment. However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on return to Defendant A, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the 12-gallons No. 12 per annum of the total list of seized goods seized by Defendant A and the 13-gallon gallon cell phone No. 12 per annum are seized stolen goods, and the reason for return to the victim K and L is apparent. Thus, the court below did not render a sentence of return to the above victims by judgment under Article 333(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A cannot be maintained as it is.

B. The crime of this case committed by Defendant B is not clear that Defendant B acquired stolens after purchasing KRW 880,00,00 with the knowledge that Defendant B had five cell phoness owned by victims in the name of the victim from Defendant A. The circumstances alleged in the grounds of appeal are considered to have been reflected in sentencing, and there is no special change in circumstances that may be considered in the first instance trial, and otherwise, Defendant B’s age, sex, environment, degree of damage, and crime.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2014노6329

-서울남부지방법원 2013.10.17 2013노1394

-수원지방법원 2017.05.25 2017노2123

-부산지방법원 2018.07.13 2018노1585

-대전지방법원 2019.10.10 2019노1901