logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전고등법원 2016.10.21 2016노144
살인등
Text

Defendant

An appeal for each part of the defendant's case of a prosecutor and for each part of the prosecutor's attachment order case shall be filed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the defendant and the person subject to attachment order and the person subject to medical treatment and custody (hereinafter “defendants”) have taken part in the face and chest of the victim of misunderstanding of facts, there was no intention to kill the victim, and there was no intention to kill the victim.

Belgium at the time of the crime of this case, there was symptoms such as Compilation mental fluor, shock disorder, etc., and was in a state of mental disability by drinking.

Article 12(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the sentence of unfair sentencing (15 years of imprisonment) is too heavy.

B. The prosecutor (i.e., the Defendant’s case): The lower court’s sentence is too minor.

The Defendant, in part of the attachment order case, is likely to recommit murder crimes.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable for the court below to dismiss the defendant's request for attachment order.

2. Determination on the part of the defendant's case

A. The court below also asserted that the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is identical to the above assertion of mistake of facts, and the court below, based on the legal principles and reasons as stated in its holding, can sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendant gets a victim's timber, and the defendant can have been aware of the possibility of the victim's death due to his or her assault, or had the victim's intent to commit murder, and rejected the above argument of the defendant.

Examining the reasons as stated in its reasoning, closely compared with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant, so this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. It is essential to rely on the expert’s appraisal in determining (i.e., whether or not the defendant has a mental or physical disorder under Article 10 of the Criminal Act).

arrow