(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노882 | 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) 청주지방법원 2018.10.25 2018노882

주거침입등

Text

The part of the judgment below regarding confiscation shall be reversed.

Two keys seized (No. 2) are from the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) On the day of the instant case, the Defendant: (a) had been residing therein for the purpose of 102, in Seocho-gu Seoul Building E (hereinafter “the instant loan”); and (b) had been living therein on the day of the instant case.

G 라는 외국인으로부터 허락을 받고 이 사건 빌라 103호에서 하룻밤을 지냈을 뿐, 이 사건 빌라 102호에 침입한 사실은 없다.

2) As to attempted intrusion upon residence, the Defendant did not intend to enter the instant 105 Ba 105 by using the key to which the said G was seized (Evidence No. 2) and did not intend to intrude the said 105.

B. The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment and confiscation) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment ex officio (the part as to forfeiture of evidence Nos. 1 and 3) of the defendant's grounds for appeal is ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant. The "goods provided or intended to be provided to a criminal act" under Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act, which were provided or intended to be provided to the criminal act in question. In order to confiscate it, the defendant provided or attempted to provide one toy (No. 1) and one toy (No. 3) seized by the defendant, and one toy (No. 1) and one toy (No. 3) to which he had been convicted of committing attempted intrusion.

Although there is no evidence to determine the seal, the judgment of the court below which forfeited the above articles from the defendant is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to confiscation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and in this respect, the part of the judgment of the court below which affected the conclusion

However, notwithstanding the above reasons for reversal ex officio, the defendant's mistake or wrongful argument about the remaining part of the judgment of the court below is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court, and this will be examined below.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant

참조조문

-형법 제48조 제1항 제1호

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.07.26 2018고단886

-대전지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노1442

-서울동부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018노870

-서울고등법원 2017.03.02 2016노4148

-부산지방법원 2016.03.18 2015노4271