(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.30 2016노680 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.03.30 2016노680

사기

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

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

B. The above sentence declared by the prosecutor by the court below is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. As to each of the unfair sentencing arguments by the Defendant and the Prosecutor, it is recognized that the nature of the crime was very bad, the damage was not recovered, and the victim did not agree with the victim, in light of the shape, method, frequency, etc. of the crime of this case.

However, considering all the conditions of sentencing as shown in the argument of this case, such as the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime of this case, etc., and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing guidelines by the Supreme Court, the sentence imposed by the court below is deemed appropriate, too heavy, or too unreasonable, in light of the fact that the defendant has no history of punishment heavier than the fine, and there is no history of punishment for the same kind of crime.

Therefore, each of the above arguments by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is without merit, and the appeal is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure provides that "the defendant's person and the prosecutor's person" in the judgment of the court below, "the defendant's person and the prosecutor's person", and "the relevant provision of the law as to the crime of 1." in the column for application of the law, is obvious that "the defendant's person and the prosecutor's person", and "the pertinent provision of the law as to the crime of 1..........., it is obvious that the error of "the choice of each imprisonment" in the corresponding provision of the law as to the crime for which the law applies, is omitted by mistake. Thus, it is corrected ex officio pursuant to Article 25

참조조문

-형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.03.23 2015노607

-부산지방법원 2017.12.01 2017노3042

-부산지방법원 2017.08.29 2017노2165

-부산지방법원 2017.03.24 2017노132

-부산지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노2566