logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.12.17 2015노5533
특수절도등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of habitual stolen transportation on a different premise, even though the defendant had transported the stolen goods of this case without knowing that they were stolen goods, is erroneous in the misunderstanding of facts.

B. The sentence against the Defendants (Defendant B: imprisonment of 5 years, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant C: imprisonment of 4 years and 6 months, confiscation, Defendant D: imprisonment of 2 years and 6 months, confiscation, Defendant E: imprisonment of 3 years and 6 months, confiscation, confiscation, Defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, Defendant A: imprisonment of 1 year and 6 months, and confiscation) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the trial process of this case and the record, namely, ① operating time, operating method, route, etc. of the transportation vehicle of this case, the defendant A appears to have been in an objective situation to recognize that the goods, such as the tools, etc. transported by himself were stolen, ② the defendant, who requested the transportation of the stolen goods of this case, and the co-defendants of this case, also stated that the defendant committed the crime of this case, knowing that they were stolen, in light of the circumstances such as the transportation situation, etc., the defendant was sufficiently aware that they were stolen; ③ the defendant had already been subject to three criminal punishment for the same stolen goods; ④ the defendant was arrested under the charge of special larceny of this case on November 10, 2014, and the defendant was released despite his dismissal request for detention warrant on November 13, 2014, the defendant's assertion that this part of this case was without merit.

B. We examine the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing as well as the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing.

arrow