logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.04.21 2015노3431
살인미수등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the facts, even though the defendant could fully recognize the fact that the defendant had intentionally committed murder and caused air guns to J and emitted ball cartridges, the court below found the defendant not guilty of attempted murder, which is the primary charge of this part. The court below erred in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing is too uneasible.

2. Determination

A. On July 2, 2011, the Defendant, along with the J, set up a collateral security right of KRW 4096,000,000 for the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, which was transferred with the J around July 2, 201. However, on October 13, 201, the Defendant was willing to kill the J on the ground of voluntary auction around March 4, 2015 due to the J’s failure to perform his/her obligations.

The Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol around 19:55 on March 7, 2015, driven an I cargo while driving the I cargo, and was enrolled in the H Manpower Office in Kimpo-si, at the time of Kimpo-si.

6. Air guns with 6 charging air guns and entering the said human resources office, and opened a card game with the upper table attached to the upper table of the said human resources office.

J and their daily behaviors were boomed, and then J attempted to kill J by emitting one of the above air guns and launching one ball ball cartridges, but the total known was broom, and attempted to fill one of the ball cartridges again, but the card games was operated with J at the same time.

After the defendant, N did not commit murder with the wind to attract both arms and air guns of the defendant and to attract the defendant outside the above manpower office.

2) The lower court’s determination is based on the following circumstances, i.e., the present site of this case, recognized by comprehensively taking account of adopted evidence.

O, P, and Q.

arrow