logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.03.26 2014노3518
살인
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

A seized knife (No. 1) shall be confiscated.

Reasons

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant filed an appeal on the grounds that the lower court’s imprisonment (15 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable and that the said punishment is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. The judgment is a condition that the defendant committed the crime of this case against the victim who temporarily visited the victim for the purpose of raising the intention even though the victim was her director by avoiding the noise trial cost between the defendant and the defendant 2 years prior to the date of the crime of this case, and the victim had a hostile appraisal. In addition, in the process of physical fighting, not the victim's prompt price, but the defendant's motive and means of the crime are very poor by killing the victim with knife with knife to the heart, and the victim's life, which is the most valuable value that cannot be compared to the victim's life, was lost from the front eye, and the victim's bereaved family members were unable to achieve self-reliance without the most serious damage to the victim and his bereaved family members, and the defendant did not receive the victim's statements to his bereaved family members, etc., which are disadvantageous to the defendant.

On the other hand, it seems that the defendant suffered from noise between floors at the time when the victim resided in the apartment of this case, the victim sleeped with the defendant, and the defendant found the victim slurbly, and first, the victim slurbly went back to the house of the defendant, resulting in the crime of this case. Thus, the crime of this case seems not to have been planned, and the defendant also suffered from the injury due to snow in the course of the crime of this case, the defendant seems to have been divided into depth of the crime of this case, and the defendant called his cell phone immediately after the crime of this case.

arrow