logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.08.17 2016노2167
특수절도등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (a year and six months of imprisonment, and confiscation) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination is recognized that the Defendant made a confession of all the crimes and divided his mistake, the victim G, J and L agreed with L, deposited KRW 1.5 million for the victim P, and the special larceny crime against the victim N was committed against attempted crimes.

However, the Defendant committed each of the crimes of this case at the same time without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, not only once a suspended sentence, once a sentence is imposed, three times a suspended sentence, and one time a suspended sentence is imposed, but also without being aware of the period of repeated crime due to the same crime, in light of the form, method, frequency, etc. of each of the crimes of this case, the nature of the crime is bad, and there is no change of circumstances that make different from the judgment of the court below, and there is no other change of circumstances that may be different from the judgment of the court below, in addition, considering the Defendant’s age, sexual behavior, environment, motive, means, and consequence of each of the crimes of this case, and the scope of recommended sentencing guidelines for the enactment of the sentencing committee of the Supreme Court, such as the circumstances after the crime, the sentence of the court below

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the Defendant’s appeal is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da3686, Dec. 29, 2015). However, since it is apparent that the “Motor Vehicle Management Act” in the column for the application of the statutes is a clerical error in the former Automobile Management Act (amended by Act No. 13686, Dec. 29, 2015). Thus, the Defendant’s appeal

arrow