logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.03.27 2013노683
성폭력범죄의처벌등에관한특례법위반(강간등살인)등
Text

Defendant

In addition, the appeal by the person who requested the attachment order is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the part of the case of this case, there is no other crime except for the crime of the establishment of a homeland reserve force and the crime of assault, which was relatively minor, prior to the crime of this case, and in light of the fact that there was no prior plan to commit the crime by preparing a deadly weapon prior to the crime of this case or by painting the objects of the crime, not by any prior plan to commit the crime of this case, but by any possibility to commit the theft by any economic defect, and by any contingency, causing the victims to commit each of the crimes of this case, the punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendant and the person subject to the request for the attachment order (hereinafter “the defendant”) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s attachment order (10 years of attachment period) against the Defendant on the part of the claim for attachment order is unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As the Defendant and his defense counsel present in the part of the instant case, there are circumstances such as the Defendant’s violation of the Establishment of Homeland Reserve Forces Act, the crime of violence, etc., and the Defendant did not have any other criminal records except for the punishment of fine, the Defendant did not prepare deadly weapons in advance for the instant crime, and the Defendant’s mistake is divided.

① However, the crime of this case committed by a single victim after rapes the victim in the course of taking the property by intrusion upon the house of the senior citizen, and murdering another victim, and committing a very serious injury by assaulting another victim in a secret manner, and the result is too serious and serious.

② The Defendant vindicates that the Defendant was too economically deficient due to loan fraud, etc., and committed the instant crime. However, the Defendant, a young and healthy body with the age of 30, could have sufficiently overcome the difficulty through his own economic activities, but attempted to give up such efforts and acquire another’s property through the instant crime.

arrow