logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.10.08 2015누36500
뇌물죄및 횡령.배임죄 양형기준 무효
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit

A litigation seeking confirmation, such as invalidation, etc. under Article 4 subparagraph 2 of the Administrative Litigation Act, is a litigation seeking confirmation of the validity or existence of "disposition, etc." by an administrative agency. As such, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of validity or existence of "disposition, etc." (Articles 4 subparagraph 2, 19, and 38 (1) of the Administrative Litigation Act) is unlawful.

In addition, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of invalidity, etc. can be brought by a person who has legal interest to seek confirmation of validity or existence of “disposition, etc.” (Article 35 of the Administrative Litigation Act). As such, a lawsuit seeking confirmation, such as invalidation, filed by a person who does not have such legal interest

(b) "Disposition, etc." in Article 2 (1) 1 of the Administrative Litigation Act means the exercise of public authority, the refusal thereof, and other corresponding administrative actions (hereinafter referred to as "disposition") by an administrative agency with respect to specific facts;

(1) The sentencing criteria and the sentencing criteria for embezzlement crime (hereinafter referred to as the “instant sentencing criteria”) decided on April 24, 2009 by the defendant on April 24, 2009 cannot be deemed to constitute “disposition, etc.” subject to confirmation litigation, such as invalidation.

(1) Judges shall be sentenced to punishment on defendants by applying Acts, such as the Criminal Act, to specific criminal facts.

On the other hand, the defendant set the sentencing criteria by type of crime in order to help judges figure out fair and objective sentencing (Article 81-2 and Article 81-6 of the Court Organization Act), and judges shall, in principle, determine the punishment to be sentenced within the scope of the sentencing criteria, and may decide the punishment to be sentenced within the scope of the sentencing criteria, stating the reasons for sentencing in the written judgment, and

Article 81-7 of the Court Organization Act (Article 81-7 of the Court Organization Act). Therefore, a judge shall apply the Criminal Act to specific criminal facts and sentencing criteria.

arrow