logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.18 2018노2824
사기등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disability due to depression, apprehension, and fluoral fission, etc.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the claim of mental retardation, the Defendant appears to have received medical treatment from the time when he/she was diagnosed as a prone to depression, mixed apprehension and prone disorder, net fissionability disorder, etc. on or around December 31, 2014. However, in light of the background leading to the instant crime, the method and method of the crime, the specific details of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Defendant did not have reached a weak state of ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of each of the instant crimes.

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

B. The Defendant’s determination on the assertion of unfair sentencing is favorable to the Defendant, such as the fact that all of the instant crimes are recognized and reflected, and that the degree or scale of damage to each individual crime is not large.

However, the Defendant committed the instant crime again during the period of the same repeated crime, even though he had been punished five times for the same crime (the Defendant was sentenced to a fine twice or more after the execution of imprisonment was completed), the number of the crimes did not reach 20 times and did not take any measures to recover from damage, and the Defendant appears to be liable for strict liability because he repeatedly committed such a crime without any particular criminal liability. In full view of all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments of the instant case, including these circumstances, the lower court’s punishment is appropriate and too unreasonable.

arrow