(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.04.07 2015노1422

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) 서울북부지방법원 2016.04.07 2015노1422

건조물침입등

Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the statements of the victims of each of the facts charged in the instant case; and (b) the statements of Defendant A, a witness to the crime of assault around November 10, 201; and (c) around October 1, 2012, each of the statements of Defendant B, a witness to the crime of destruction, can be recognized as having been specific and consistent and sufficiently reliable; (b) the court below rejected the statements of the victims and I without reasonable grounds, and sentenced the Defendants not guilty of all of the facts charged in the instant case; and (c) the judgment of the court below is erroneous

2. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, cannot recognize the credibility of each of the statements made by the victims of each of the facts charged in the instant case in the investigative agency and the court of the lower court, and I’s legal witness I.

In light of this, the lower court acquitted this part of the charges.

Examining the following circumstances admitted by the evidence of the court below in light of the circumstances admitted by these evidence, the court below's above determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor.

① The I’s statement (Evidence No. 58 of the Evidence No. 58) that witnessed the crime as to the facts charged of the crime (Defendant A) around November 10, 201 was prepared around July 28, 2013, and the I’s testimony content in the court of original instance was prepared by asking the criminal officer in charge and his/her corresponding time after the lapse of three to four days from the date of the crime. In light of the above, it is difficult to understand the content of the I’s statement in itself, and in light of the above, it is difficult to accept the Prosecutor’s assertion that I’s memory was only trusted solely on the ground that the crime committed at a specific place called parking lot No. 1 was committed once this part.

(2) On July 25, 2012, the victim E shall make the same date and time as at the time of filing a criminal charge (defendant A).

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.06.22 2017노377

-서울북부지방법원 2014.10.02 2014노708

-서울북부지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노739

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.27 2016노73

-수원지방법원 2018.06.29 2018노1084