(영문) 전주지방법원 2014.11.14 2014노974 | 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) 전주지방법원 2014.11.14 2014노974

업무상횡령등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

Of the facts charged in the instant case, March 23, 2009.

Reasons

1. The sentence of the court below against the defendant in the summary of the grounds for appeal is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the defendant and his counsel.

In a case where the confession of a defendant is the only evidence against him/her, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in a case where the defendant was found guilty on the basis of his/her confession without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). Since substantive concurrent crimes are crimes, the confession of a defendant is a substantial number of crimes, and there is no supporting evidence

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on March 23, 2009 as evidence only for the Defendant’s confession and the police statement about the victim K as to the use of the private document (No. 4 No. 4 of the crime log table in the judgment of the lower court) and the use of the falsified document (the charge No. 4 of the crime log in the judgment of the lower court), and found the Defendant guilty on each of the above facts charged. However, the police statement on the victim K was not submitted any supporting evidence such as a written contract related to the purchase of mobile phones in the name of the victim K, and the amount of one million won or more is claimed in the victim’s future due to the non-payment of the use fee, as described in each of the above facts charged. It is insufficient to support that the Defendant prepared and exercised a private document on March 23, 2009, which is a private document pertaining to the rights and duties at a non-place on March 23, 2009.

Rather, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is stated in Nos. 1 through 4 in the list of crimes (i.e., fabrication of private documents) in the judgment of the court below, which was admitted to the victim K in the investigation agency

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도7835 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2013.10.11 2013노1219

-의정부지방법원 2020.01.16 2019노1784

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노3499

-대구지방법원 2013.03.28 2013노401

-서울남부지방법원 2013.04.11 2013노367