(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.07.22 2020노392 | 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) 광주지방법원 2020.07.22 2020노392

절도등

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts (Defendant) ① brought CCTV at the request of the victim to take CCTV in relation to larceny, and there was only difference between the telephone line and the telephone line, ② There was no theft of CCTV and the telephone system, ② the victim’s vehicle was used with the consent of the victim in relation to the unlawful use of the motor vehicle. ③ In relation to the special intimidation, the Defendant only moved to the kitchen line away from the floor, and there was no intimidation against the victim.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant's punishment of the court below (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, while the prosecutor asserts that it is too uneasible and unfair.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and examined the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim has no CCTV and telephone system since the Defendant was in the investigative stage up to the court; (ii) the victim requested the Defendant to wear CCTV or consented to the use of the vehicle; and (iii) each of the above statements was made by the Defendant using a knife; and (iv) the Defendant could be made reliable as detailed and reliable; and (ii) the Defendant continuously caused disturbance or incidental things to find the victim as a result of a knifeing with the victim, and it is difficult to view that the Defendant requested the Defendant to take CCTV or consented to the use of the vehicle despite the failure of the relationship between the Defendant and the victim, by requesting the Defendant to take advantage of the CCTV and the telephone system of the victim; and temporarily used the vehicle of the victim without the consent of the victim; and (v) the Defendant could sufficiently be fully recognized by using the kitchen.

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

3. The Defendant’s judgment on the assertion of unfair sentencing is excluded from larceny, unlawful use of automobiles, and special intimidation.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.08.24 2016노467

-서울서부지방법원 2021.04.01 2020노1137

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.28 2020노3882

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.09 2016노230

-대구지방법원 2019.06.21 2019노350