(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.11.07 2018노1887 | 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) 서울고등법원 2018.11.07 2018노1887

살인미수등

Text

The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for fifteen years.

Jinnaf.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order and the person who requested the order to observe the protective order (hereinafter “Defendant”) are as follows: (a) the Defendant’s part of the case (misunderstanding of facts, mental or physical weakness, and illegal sentencing) [the attempted murder (Article 2018 Gohap 52)]; and (b) the Defendant assaulted the victim on the caric book in a caric book, and the Defendant did not have any intention to commit murder.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged.

B) The Defendant had weak ability to discern things or make decisions due to drinking, etc. at the time of committing the instant special bodily injury.

C) The lower court’s sentence (20 years of imprisonment, confiscation) against an unjust defendant is too unreasonable.

2) The part regarding the request for attachment order (misunderstanding of the legal principle) was committed by the Defendant contingently, and the Defendant did not commit the murder before committing each of the instant crimes, and since social ties are clear, there is no risk of recidivism by the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles that ordering the defendant to attach an electronic tracking device for 30 years.

B. The prosecutor (the part in the case of the defendant) 1 is guilty (the part in the case of the defendant). ① The victim suffered serious injury such as 1 cm in diameter, 217, and 4 cm in the body of the victim by dividing the two outer frames into several sections, and then cutting down 1 cm in diameter and 1 cm in two sections. This is due to the fact that the defendant prices the part of the victim's head by intentionally force of murder. ② The criminal tools used by the defendant at the time appear to have been a deadly weapon to the degree of death. ③ The defendant committed the crime of murder committed by the victim G prior to the crime of this part, which appears to be the so-called "crime of murder" against the victim G. This part of this part.

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2018.11.29 2018노75

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2017.09.20 2017노179

-대전고등법원 2021.01.15 2020노384

-서울고등법원 2017.07.13 2017노443

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2018.07.18 2018노25