(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.13 2018노1167 | 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) 서울고등법원 2018.07.13 2018노1167

일반물건방화등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the physical and mental weakness at the time of preventing each of the instant crimes, even though the Defendant had been physically and mentally in a state of extreme disorder at the time of the instant crime.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mental and physical weakness, the fact that the Defendant was diagnosed with the pulmatic disorder on June 13, 2016, which was subsequent to each of the instant crimes is recognized.

However, in view of the circumstances surrounding each of the instant crimes, such as CCTV images at the scene of each of the instant crimes, and the method and method thereof, and the Defendant’s behavior before and after each of the instant crimes, the Defendant was deemed to have lost the ability to discern things or make decisions at the time of committing each of the instant crimes, or having lost the ability to make decisions.

It is not recognized.

The above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court shall consider the following facts: (a) the Defendant was diagnosed of a stimulative disorder in need of hospital treatment for more than three months after the Defendant committed the crime; (b) the degree of damage to the general building fire prevention in its ruling is relatively small; and (c) the injury to the general building fire prevention in light of the following factors: (a) the crime committed was seriously harming the safety and peace of the public; and (d) the risk of causing serious damage to the lives, bodies, or property of the large number of people; and (b) the occurrence of considerable property damage was actually caused by the general building fire prevention in its ruling; and (b) the Defendant was diagnosed of a stimulative disorder in need of hospital treatment for more than three months after the crime was committed; and (d) the damage to the general building fire prevention in its ruling is relatively small; and (e) the equity between

유사 판례

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2018.01.23 2017노200

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.07 2018노888

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.29 2017노1406

-부산지방법원 2017.06.02 2017노1329

-부산지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노748