(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.30 2016노662 | 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 2016노662

특수절도등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Each sentence (10 months of imprisonment with prison labor, and 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor) declared by the lower court on the gist of the grounds of appeal is too unreasonable.

2. It is recognized that the defendants divided their mistakes, the amount of damage is not significant, and D, an accomplice, reached an agreement with some victims.

However, Defendant A had the record of being punished once the suspended sentence for the same thief crime; Defendant B committed each of the crimes in this case during the suspended sentence period for this thief crime; Defendant B committed each of the crimes in this case in light of the form, method, frequency, etc. of each of the crimes in this case; Defendants failed to make specific efforts to recover damage; there is no change of circumstances that may otherwise determine the age, sex, environment, motive, means, and consequence of the crime in this case; and considering all of the sentencing conditions in the arguments in this case, including the circumstances after the crime, it is not deemed unfair for the court below to have imposed each of the offenses in this case.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the Defendants’ appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that all of the appeals are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That in the judgment of the court below, the Defendants’ “B” in Article 364(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act, “D, E,” and the victim’s name “BR” in Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act No. 13 of the victim list No. 4 of the crime list No. 13 of the crime list No. 13 of the judgment of the court below is obvious, and it is apparent that “AH is each clerical error in the investigation report (the calculation of the amount of damage due to the delay)” and it is corrected and added ex officio pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

참조조문

-형사소송규칙 제25조 제1항

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.04.27 2016노857

-부산지방법원 2017.11.17 2017노3436

-대구지방법원 2016.03.30 2016노439

-대구지방법원 2016.08.10 2016노205

-부산지방법원 2018.04.27 2018노248