logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2015.09.17 2015노265
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(상습상해)등
Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment of two years and two months, and by imprisonment of one year and ten months, respectively.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court of Defendant A2 (one year and two months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, on May 6, 2015, prior to the pronouncement of the lower judgment, Defendant B expressed his/her intent not to be punished by Defendant B in consultation with the victim N on May 6, 2015. Therefore, the lower court’s judgment that found Defendant B guilty of this part of the facts charged was erroneous by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. On June 25, 2014, the public prosecutor Defendant A was sentenced to two years of suspension of execution on August 22, 2014 by imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of obstruction of performance of official duties at the Gangnam Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court.

However, among the facts constituting the crime of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the judgment against Defendant A was committed under the period of the above judgment, and since the period of the suspension of execution has not yet lapsed, Defendant A constitutes a disqualified person for the suspension of execution.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which sentenced Defendant A to a suspended sentence of imprisonment.

2. Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, the part against Defendant A and the judgment of the court below of second instance

A. On the premise that each of the facts charged against Defendant A in the judgment of the court below was taken as a habit of the same act of violence among the judgment below, the prosecutor of the amendment of the indictment 1 shall be deemed to have been habitually injured by the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act", and the applicable provisions of law "Article 2(2) and (1)3 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, and Articles 257(1), 37, and 38 of the Criminal Act" shall be deemed to have been punished.

arrow