logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.18 2017노3398
강도상해등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

Defendant C and D, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and Defendant C and D.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s assertion (1) In the absence of a threat to the victim M (hereinafter “victim”) as stated in the facts charged, the lower court found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts constituting the crime by misunderstanding the fact.

(2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (a four years and six months of imprisonment, confiscation) is excessively unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendant’s responsibility.

B. Each sentence of the court below's argument that Defendant B, C, D, and E (Defendant B's imprisonment of four years and six years, Defendant C, and D's imprisonment of three years, and Defendant E's imprisonment of two years) is unfair compared to the degree of the Defendants' responsibility.

(c)

The court below acquitted the defendant A, B, C, and D of the fact-finding or legal principles on the injury of robbery by misunderstanding the facts, or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to whether the injury was recognized in the crime of robbery, although it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant A, B, C, and D had engaged in the same injury as the facts charged by drinking and kneeing the victim's face, hair, head, and body knee.

(2) Each of the above types of punishment sentenced by the lower court, which was deemed unfair, is unreasonable compared to the extent of the Defendants’ responsibility.

2. Determination

A. The victim's assertion of mistake of facts by Defendant A (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as the "Defendant") is consistent from the investigative agency to the court of the court below to determine whether the victim “A” or “A” or “C”.

R. L.C. L. L. L. L.C.

“Intimidating” the term “intimidating.”

“A statement was made to the effect that it was “,” and joint Defendant D also made a statement corresponding thereto at an investigative agency.

Defendant

In addition, the fact that the investigative agency was excessively excessive and the victim called "I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am I am

arrow