logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.08.30 2018노1460
중감금등
Text

Defendant

In addition, both appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. Part 1 of the case, among the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order, the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) did not intend to capture and detain the victim. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding the fact that the Defendant and the person who requested the attachment order (hereinafter “the Defendant”) had no intention to arrest and detain the victim. Thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B) The instant crime was committed under the state of mental and physical weakness.

C) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (20 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2) Prosecutor: The sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the request for attachment order of an electronic tracking device even though the Defendant is likely to recommit the murder crime.

Judgment

As to the part of the case of the defendant, the crime of confinement is a crime that makes it impossible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area with the protected legal interest as the protected legal interest of the defendant, and thus it is possible or extremely difficult for a person to leave a specific area as such, not only physical and tangible obstacles but also psychological and intangible obstacles, and the essence of confinement is neither tangible nor intangible nor intangible, nor any restriction exists on the means and methods of restricting the freedom of action by restricting the freedom of action, and the deprivation of the freedom of action in confinement does not necessarily require a complete deprivation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2424, Oct. 8, 1985; 84Do655, May 15, 198; 84Do6568, Feb. 28, 200).

arrow