(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노810 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노810

공갈

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not commit a theft or take money from the victims.

The victim E classified the defendant as an offender after the victim met only by himself, and the victim D was first reported the defendant's photograph and designated the defendant as an offender. Thus, the victim's statement by the victim who designated the defendant as an offender is not credibility.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In general, in a criminal identification procedure based on the appearance, etc. of the suspect's appearance, etc., generally, allowing a witness to identify the criminal by presenting only one photograph of the suspect to the witness during the criminal identification procedure, such credibility is low due to the limitation of human memory and inaccuracy and the possibility that the suspect may give him/her the awareness of the suspect who is suspected of being the criminal under the specific circumstances, due to the lack of credibility.

However, in addition to the victim's statement, if there are additional circumstances such as other circumstances to suspect the suspect as an offender, it may be assessed differently (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5381, Aug. 27, 2015). In light of the above legal principles, the victim E of the crime to be committed by the court below was lawfully adopted and investigated as follows: ① on April 11, 2018, the day on which the crime was committed, stating that “the victim E of the crime to be committed committed by the public was citing the Defendant’s appearance on his/her head by making an examination after the examination and investigation into the surroundings of the crime scene; ② on April 12, 2018, the police made a statement that “the victim E was identified as a criminal of the defendant through the investigation into the crime scene; ② on April 12, 2018, the victim E stated further in detail as to the content of the crime and the situation at the time of the crime; and

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 8. 27. 선고 2015도5381 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.16 2017고단4863

-청주지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노740

-광주지방법원 2017.08.23 2016노3787

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2016.08.11 2015고합55

-창원지방법원 2017.06.28 2017노10