logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.09 2015노3483
컴퓨터등사용사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (ten months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The crime of this case, which committed the crime of this case, is not deemed to be a good crime, such as theft of vehicles, fire-proof structures, etc., and intrusion upon another person’s residence, and attempted to larceny, and attempted to commit such theft.

The lower court sentenced the Defendant to ten months of imprisonment, considering all the circumstances where the Defendant violated the instant crime and most damaged goods were returned or recovered to a certain extent, and there are no special circumstances or changes in circumstances that may be considered in the new sentencing after the sentence of the lower judgment.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant has made a serious effort to recover the victims from damage.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, details and details of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., the sentencing conditions specified in the instant records and pleadings do not seem to be unfair because the sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, “Article 342 (Attempted thief)” in the pertinent provision on criminal facts in the application of the law of the lower judgment is clear that “Article 342 and Article 329 (Attempted thief)” and “the former part of Articles 37, 38(1)2, 50, and the proviso of Article 42 of the Criminal Act” among concurrent criminal offenders are written errors in the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. As such, the ex officio rectification is made pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Regulations on Criminal Procedure.

arrow