(영문) 광주고등법원 2015.07.23 2015노115 | 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) 광주고등법원 2015.07.23 2015노115

살인미수등

Text

Of the judgment of the court below of first instance, Defendant B and 2 shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B A person shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than six years.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. A. A prosecutor 1) The judgment of the court below that acquitted Defendant A on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge that Defendant A conspired with Defendant B obtained money from the victim S, but such judgment of the court below was erroneous. (2) Each punishment of the court below against the Defendants on unfair sentencing (Defendant A 2 years and six months of imprisonment, suspended execution, four years of imprisonment, six years of imprisonment, and four months of imprisonment) is too uneasible.

B. Each sentence of the judgment of the court below against Defendant B is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant B, each of which was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance, and the prosecutor and the above defendant filed an appeal against them, and the court of second instance decided to hold concurrent hearings of the above two appeals cases. Since the crimes of the court of first and second instance against the above defendant are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and one punishment should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the part of the judgment of the court of first and

B. 1) The summary of the judgment of the court below of the first instance as to the prosecutor's allegation of mistake of facts as to the defendant A, which is not guilty, was obtained KRW 474 million by deceiving the victim S in collusion with the defendant A. 2) The first instance court's judgment of the court below, ① The victim S's statement is merely a vague trend that "the defendant A was aware of the fraudulent act committed by the defendant A," ② the transfer of the defendant's statement to the head of Tong under the name of the defendant A twice was made in accordance with the instructions of B, and ③ the cash custody certificate as of December 20, 2013 entered the name of the defendant A, but the name of the above defendant was stated in the cash custody certificate as of December 20, 201, and then affixed the above defendant's seal after signing the above defendant's name.

참조조문

-형법 제38조 제1항

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.05.08 2019노3918

-전주지방법원 2020.01.22 2018노1682

-대구지방법원 2016.11.24 2016노3947

-수원지방법원 2019.01.24 2018노5886

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2015노98