logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.08.19 2016노160
현주건조물방화
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the shock disorder at the time of the instant crime, etc., which affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant, at the time of the instant crime, failed to have the ability to discern things or make decisions.

B. The lower court’s punishment (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

A. As to the assertion of mental disorder, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court.

In light of the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, which can be seen by the record, the lower court found that the Defendant had the weak ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing the instant crime.

The defendant's assertion was rejected on the ground that it could not be seen.

2) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable and acceptable. In so determining, contrary to the allegations by the Defendant or his defense counsel, the lower court erred and adversely affected

subsection (b) of this section.

B. As to the unfair argument of sentencing, the circumstances cited by the lower court (the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant, which was destroyed by the building in which the Defendant and his neighbors live, and was likely to cause serious damage to the lives and property of a large number of people, and the nature of the crime is not easy.

The Defendant, who was sentenced to one year and six months of the suspended sentence for the purpose of the present state building, fire prevention, etc. and again committed the instant crime even though he was under the suspended sentence, and the sentence imposed by the lower court falls under the lower limit of the recommended sentence according to the sentencing guidelines, as well as the fact that the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for a minor limited term (a life imprisonment or imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years) as prescribed by the Act on the instant crime falls under the lower limit of the sentencing sentence, and is subject to the conditions of sentencing that can be known by the record.

arrow