(영문) 춘천지방법원 2015.09.02 2015노505 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2015.09.02 2015노505

상습절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

1,000,000.10.00.0.00.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence of imprisonment (three years of imprisonment, confiscation) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) As to the facts charged in the indictment attached to the indictment of misapprehension of the legal principle, Defendant’s act of entering a residence constitutes a crime of habitual larceny, and thus, Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. However, the lower court acquitted Defendant of this part of the facts charged. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on habitual larceny, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle by the prosecutor

A. On December 30, 2014, the Defendant, at around 10:15, went beyond the fence of the victim M’s residence in Chuncheon X, and escaped from the Defendant’s escape.

B. The lower court rendered a not guilty verdict on the grounds that the Defendant infringed upon the said victim’s residence, cannot be deemed to have commenced the act of physical coloring property to be stolen, and there was no other evidence to acknowledge it, and thus did not commence the commission of larceny.

C. In a case where a person who committed a crime such as habitual larceny as prescribed in Article 5-4(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes committed a crime of habitual larceny, etc., if he/she intrudes upon his/her residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon his/her residence constitutes only one crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in the said Act, and does not constitute a separate crime of habitual larceny, etc. as prescribed in the said Act. Moreover, in a case where the person who committed the said habitual larceny, etc., was injured by his/her residence for the purpose of habitual larceny, in addition to the crime, and was found to have committed the crime of habitual larceny, and even if he/she was found to have committed the crime of habitual larceny, etc., the act of

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.03.12 2014고단8287

-대법원 2017. 7. 11. 선고 2017도4044 판결

-대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노1955

-청주지방법원 2013.09.27 2013노580

-인천지방법원 2014.05.09 2014노729