logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.05.01 2015노795
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than two years and six months.

No. 19 through 21 of seized evidence.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint confinement) although the defendant could not be deemed to have detained the above victim at any time, since the victim of misunderstanding of facts L, together with the defendant, could have escaped at any time according to his/her own intention, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

B. The three-year sentence of imprisonment sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the determination of the grounds for appeal by authority, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with regard to "violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among the name of the defendant as "Habitual larceny", and "Article 5-4 (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes" among applicable provisions of the Act as "Article 332 of the Criminal Act". This court permitted the changes in the subject of the judgment, and the facts charged with the changes in the indictment as well as the remaining facts charged are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the judgment of the court below

However, despite the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court, and is judged below.

B. The lower court acknowledged the following facts based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, and (1) the Defendant heard from co-defendant B of the lower court that the victim would be mixed with the victim, and (2) held that the victim would be born to the rear seat while moving the victim to the vehicle owned by the victim, and that the victim will sit together with the victim, and that the victim would not be able to sit at the rear seat, and that the victim would not be able to sit up with the victim, and that the victim would have 50,000 won.

arrow