logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.06.26 2013노3163
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

The judgment of the court below (including the part of acquittal in the reason) shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Defendant

The Defendant, on the conviction of the lower judgment, did not commit a theft of two hybrids (TV) recorded in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment (hereinafter “victims of the instant case”), and the Defendant purchased 50 of the 50-person hybrids from the son.

The sentence of unfair sentencing (three years of imprisonment) by the court below is too unreasonable.

The first submission from the defendant with regard to the theft part, such as the violation of the law of public prosecutor or mistake of facts (not guilty part of the judgment of the court below), constitutes a voluntary custody, not a seizure of a large-material compulsory disposition, but a non-official procedure, and a seizure is lawfully made when the defendant voluntarily submits the stolen part after confirming that the counter-feasible part is a larceny damage.

Even if the first evidence is seized, the time to determine whether the seizure is legitimate should be based on the time when voluntary submission was received after proving the suspicion.

In addition, even if the seizure procedure against the counter-influence is illegal, evidence such as the counter-influence and the second evidence obtained based on this can be used as evidence of conviction.

This part of the criminal facts are fully recognized in full view of the results of the adequate appraisal found in the site of the case by the senior citizens' center Twitb in relation to the theft part.

The decision of the court below on the total amount of unfair sentencing (with respect to the whole) is too unjustifiable and unfair.

Judgment

The following circumstances found by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, i.e., the discovery and seizure of 50 china (in the case of this case, the number of 50 chinae is identical; 2 / 305 / 305 / 10 / 2 / 2 / 2 / 305

arrow