(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017재노6 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017재노6

반공법위반등

Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant shall be reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. According to the final records of the judgment subject to a retrial, the following facts are recognized:

A. Defendant 3’s charge of violation of public law and violation of the Fisheries Act (hereinafter “instant charge”) as stated in the summary of the facts charged in the following 3-A, was prosecuted under the Jeonju District Court’s 68Da3026, and the above support was convicted of all the facts charged on February 15, 1969, and sentenced the Defendant to one year and one year of suspension of qualification.

B. As to the judgment of the first instance, the Defendant filed an appeal with the Jeonju District Court 69 No. 170, the Jeonju District Court, and the appellate court accepted the Defendant’s unfair assertion of sentencing on July 2, 1969, and reversed the judgment of the first instance, and sentenced the Defendant to eight months imprisonment and suspension of qualification for the first time (hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”).

Since the defendant did not appeal against the judgment subject to a retrial, the period of appeal was expired, the judgment subject to a retrial against the defendant became final and conclusive at that time.

(d)

On July 1, 2017, the Defendant filed a motion for a new trial on the judgment subject to a new trial. On September 12, 2017, this court rendered a decision to commence a new trial on the part of the Defendant among the judgment subject to a new trial on the grounds that there exist grounds stipulated in Article 420 subparag. 7 of the Criminal Procedure Act in the judgment subject to a new trial, and the said decision to commence a new trial became final

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In fact, the Defendant, as indicated in the facts charged, did not go beyond the line of fishing or the Military Demarcation Line for the purpose of raising fishing, and even if there was a fact beyond the Military Demarcation Line, this was done while the Defendant was engaged in fishing operations, and thus there was no intention to do so.

2) The sentence of the lower court (one year of imprisonment and one year of suspension of qualifications) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is that of the lower court.

참조조문

-반공법

-수산업법

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2017.10.20 2017재노1

-전주지방법원 2017.09.29 2015재노11 (1)

-전주지방법원 2017.11.24 2017재노7

-서울고등법원 2017.01.24 2015재노7

-전주지방법원 2018.09.07 2017재고합13