(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.13 2014노1809

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.05.13 2014노1809

장물알선

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for eight months and by imprisonment for ten months.

except that this shall not apply.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the punishment of the court below (the punishment of the defendant A: 8 months of imprisonment and the suspended sentence 2 years of probation, the community service work 200 hours of the defendant B and the suspended execution 2 years of imprisonment and the community service 200 hours of the suspended execution) is too unreasonable; and

2. Determination

A. We examine the Defendants’ grounds for appeal ex officio prior to the examination.

From the beginning of July 2008 to the end of September 2009, the lower court: (a) received request from the Defendants for selling 300,000 won of precious metal, including one gold dog owned by the victim F, which he stolen from E; (b) knowingly, the aforesaid precious metal was sold to the gold bank business owner I KRW 700,00,00; and (c) assisted the transfer of stolen goods six times over six times. Each of the charges of the crime was committed by the Defendants, with the knowledge that the gold dog owned by the victim F was stolen; (b) one gold dog owned by the victim JJ; (c) four gold tree owned by the victim; (d) one gold tree owned by the victim; (d) one gold tree owned by the victim; (d) one gold tree owned by the victim; and (e) one gold pole owned by the victim; and (d) one gold pole owned by the victim, and (e) one gold pole owned by the victim, with the knowledge of the amendment of the bill of amendment of the indictment.

In the facts charged as above, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of each of the following facts: “300,000 won in precious metal including one gold son,” and each of the “7,00,000 won in the purchase-price,” respectively, and found the Defendant guilty of not having separately explained the part of innocence, on the grounds that the lower court did not separately explain the part of the facts charged in the instant case.

B. However, it is recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.11.09 2016고정1853

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.10.22 2013고정4481

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.07.22 2013고단963

-서울북부지방법원 2013.04.25 2013고정680

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2014.08.18 2014고정822