Whether the general provisions of Article 25 of the Criminal Act shall not apply to an attempted crime, and whether the application of the Act is in violation of

As long as Article 254 and Article 250 (1) of the Criminal Act are applied to the crime of attempted murder, it is not a violation of the application of the law even though Article 25 of the Criminal Act is not applied.

Articles 25, 254, and 250 of the Criminal Act; Article 361-5 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Defendant

Prosecutor and Defendant

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (74Gohap48)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for three years.

One hundred fifteen days out of the detention days prior to the declaration of the original judgment shall be included in the above sentence.

The seized one (Evidence No. 1) shall be confiscated.

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal by the defendant's defense counsel is as follows: first, since the principal offense of the defendant is the crime of attempted murder, Article 25 of the Criminal Act on the attempted murder should be applied in the application of the law, but the court below erred by misapprehending the law that affected the conclusion of the judgment; second, the judgment of the court below is too unreasonable because the amount of punishment imposed by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable; second, the summary of the grounds for appeal by the prosecutor is that the judgment of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, I first examine the grounds for appeal by the defendant that erroneous application of the law. Since the court below acknowledged the facts charged by the defendant as the crime of attempted murder and it is clear that the court below applied Article 25 of the Criminal Act to the provisions of the Criminal Act for attempted murder under Articles 254 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, the grounds for appeal that the defendant did not apply Article 25 of the Criminal Act in applying the law of the court below cannot be accepted, and even if examining the records, the court below did not find any permissible article in the process of fact-finding or the application of the law, and further, examining the grounds for appeal by the court below as to the grounds for appeal by unfair sentencing, such as the motive, means, degree of damage, degree of damage, the age and character of the defendant, environment, circumstances after the crime, etc. of lawfully investigating the court below, and considering the circumstances asserted by the defendant or prosecutor, there are reasons for appeal by the defendant from this point because it is too unreasonable to determine the sentence imposed by the court below because it is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed by accepting the defendant's appeal in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the members are decided again, and the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the same Act.

(Criminal Facts and Summary of Evidence)

The criminal facts of the defendant recognized as a party member and the summary of the evidence are as shown in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and all of them are cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(Application of Acts and subordinate statutes)

The so-called "the judgment of the defendant" falls under Articles 254 and 250 (1) of the Criminal Act, and as the case is an attempted criminal, the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment which has been mitigated under Articles 25, 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act, and the defendant is punished by imprisonment with prison labor within the scope of the term of punishment which has been mitigated under Articles 25, 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the same Act. In accordance with Article 57 of the same Act, 115 days out of the detention days before the sentence is included in the above sentence, and one (Evidence No. 1) seized shall be included in the articles provided for the crime, and therefore, it shall be confiscated under Article 48

It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)