logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.07.21 2017노1513
주거침입등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant merely assaults the victim at home only once, and cannot be deemed as assault or intimidation to the extent that he or she could objectively suppress or resist against the victim’s resistance in light of social common sense. The Defendant did not commit assault or intimidation in the playter where he or she was found to have taken on the part of the Defendant, and the victim did not brea the victim’s act of assault he or she was bread and was unable to resist at home.

In addition, the defendant did not assault the victim for the purpose of taking property forcibly.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The prosecutor bears the burden of proving the criminal facts prosecuted in the relevant criminal trial. The conviction must be based on evidence with probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Thus, if there is no such evidence, even if there is doubt of guilt against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do3309, Apr. 12, 1996). Meanwhile, in the crime of robbery, the degree of assault and intimidation must be such an extent that the other party’s resistance or resistance may be objectively forced from social norms (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do359, Mar. 23, 2001). The degree of intimidation causes fear by notifying the victim of harm, and the degree of intimidation should be determined by the court below’s lawful adoption of evidence to the extent that the other party’s resistance or resistance against social norms is objectively prevented (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do3309, Mar. 23, 2001).

arrow