(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노1523 | 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) 전주지방법원 2016.01.22 2015노1523

상습절도

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the legal principles, the crime of this case was committed by the Defendant on August 31, 2015, which became final and conclusive on August 31, 2015 and constitutes a crime of habitual residence larceny and a comprehensive crime of larceny. Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the charge of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a judgment becomes final and conclusive with respect to a part of a crime which is a single comprehensive crime as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, a judgment of acquittal shall be rendered on the ground that the final and conclusive judgment has no effect on the crime committed prior to the time when the judgment of the court of fact was rendered (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1252, May 11, 2006). According to the records, the Defendant was convicted of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of one year and ten months on April 30, 2015, in the case of the former District Court 2015 Inventory 7, the former District Court 2015 Inventory 7, the Defendant was sentenced to a judgment of conviction for a crime such as habitual intrusion upon residence at night, and the appeal was withdrawn on August 31, 2015, and the judgment became final and conclusive. Accordingly, the crime of this case does not constitute habitual larceny from the above final and conclusive judgment on the crime of larceny at night.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of law.

B. The fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime is recognized, and the attitude of reflecting the mistake is considered favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is committed by the defendant opening a door of a vehicle and cutting off property of 480,000 won over 15 times, and the nature of the crime is serious in light of the method and frequency of the crime, and the defendant is larceny.

참조판례

-대법원 2006. 5. 11. 선고 2006도1252 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.05.27 2016노125

-인천지방법원 2016.09.22 2016노2294

-수원지방법원 2017.01.20 2016노7832

-제주지방법원 2017.10.26 2017노457

-광주지방법원 2016.04.28 2015노2013