logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.09.04 2014노3172
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

All appeals by the prosecutor and the defendant are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the frequency, period, and method of the instant crime, which is recognized by the Prosecutor’s 1) by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the instant crime ought to be deemed to be attributable to the realization of the Defendant’s wall of larceny. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of violating the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) on the ground that there is no habitualness of larceny, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the determination of habituality of larceny, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2)

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant committed the instant crime on 24 occasions in a short period of time, solely on the ground that it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant crime was based on the Defendant’s appearance of the theft habit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge habitualness, on the grounds that it is difficult to conclude that this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime and there is no other evidence to prove recidivism.

In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the court below's determination that the defendant was innocent as to this part of the facts charged is just and acceptable, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the prosecutor. Thus, this part of the prosecutor's assertion is

B. Regarding the prosecutor's and the defendant's assertion of unreasonable sentencing, the defendant himself.

arrow