(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.05.28 2019노1040 | 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 2020.05.28 2019노1040

폐기물관리법위반등

Text

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for three years and six months, and by imprisonment with prison labor for one year.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of facts (as to each fraud in the second judgment of the court below), the Defendant actually went through the export procedure of the instant wastes, but the project was not completed properly due to customs problems, so there was no intention to deception or deception against the victims. Nevertheless, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts in the judgment of the court below that recognized that the Defendant, after collecting the wastes, knew the victims of the above transport charges even though the victim did not have the intent or ability to pay the transport charges even if he did not transport the wastes in the principal domestic port, etc., after leaving neglected to do so, there was an error of misconception of facts. 2) The judgment of unfair sentencing (the first judgment of the court of appeal: imprisonment of August, 200; imprisonment of 3 years; imprisonment of 3 years and additional collection 27,212,960

B. The sentence of the second judgment against the Defendants by the public prosecutor (Defendant A: imprisonment of three years and additional collection of KRW 27,212,960; imprisonment of one year, three years of suspended execution, three years of social service, 270 hours, additional collection of KRW 27,212,960) is too uneasy and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. A. A prosecutor of the amendment to a bill of amendment (the second written judgment) made an application for permission to amend a bill of amendment with the content that "17,353,830 won" was changed to "120,292,260 won" and "496,761,830 won" from "49,70,260 won" among the facts charged in the second written judgment, and the subject of the judgment was changed by this court.

Therefore, the second original judgment against the Defendants was no longer maintained.

B. As to the judgment of the first or third lower court, the prosecutor filed each appeal against the judgment of the second or third lower court, and the court decided to concurrently examine the above appeal cases.

Defendant

Each crime of the lower court against A is a concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.10.29 2013노2808

-수원지방법원 2020.01.17 2019노4579

-대구고등법원 2014.05.08 2012노598

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2016.11.01 2016노103

-광주지방법원 2014.03.21 2013노2426