logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014노1472
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등재물손괴등)등
Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and Defendant A shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the case as the sole act of the defendant A, and found the defendant guilty only for the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective, deadly weapons, etc.). The court below found the defendant A guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. (joint destruction and damage, etc.) of the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective destruction and damage, etc.) (collective destruction and damage, etc.) in a commercial concurrent relationship, and found the defendant A guilty of violating the Punishment of Violences, etc. (collective destruction and damage, etc. of deadly weapons, etc.).

Defendant

The court below found Defendant B not guilty of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.) and violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (commonly, the crime of Defendant A does not recognize that Defendant B participated in the crime of Defendant A). According to CCTV video, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that Defendant B and Defendant A can recognize an implied conspiracy relation, but the court below determined this case as a sole act of Defendant A.

(B) According to the above video, Defendant B 2 saw that Defendant B 1 had a view of 106 by stopping in front of No. 106 of the Gap-itel 106 and 106, Defendant A, following Defendant B, had a view that Defendant B had a view of using the camping net with a view to a 106 glass window by gathering the camping net, and Defendant B did not play at all on the part of this, and did not attempt to see Defendant A or to find a view of 106.

Defendant

A (1) The misunderstanding of the legal principle is used as a simple tool that damages property. As such, Defendant A’s act should be applied to the damage of property under the Criminal Act, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine in determining the rate as a crime of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively, deadly weapons, etc.).

(2) The sentence imposed by the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2...

arrow