(영문) 부산고등법원 2018.07.18 2018노280 | 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) 부산고등법원 2018.07.18 2018노280

강도상해등

Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the person who requested the attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the respondent for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not intend to cause injury to the said victims only when misunderstanding the facts, misunderstanding the legal principles, and misunderstanding of the legal principles (in relation to robbery) by the victim C and J, and did not intend to cause injury to the said victims.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (nine years of imprisonment, confiscation) is too unreasonable.

3) It is unreasonable in the lower court to recognize the cause of a request for attachment order and order the Defendant to attach a location tracking device for a period of ten years, even though the Defendant did not pose a risk of robbery or recidivism.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, which can be known by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant had the intention of injury to the Defendant at the time of committing the robbery.

Recognized.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

① At the time of committing robbery against the victim C, the Defendant: (a) attempted to attract the said victim with a large number of alleys; (b) the said victim’s resistance, and (c) threatened the said victim with knife; and (d) his head and mackt the said victim faced with the victim on the floor; and (b) in the course of causing the said victim and intending to attract the said victim to the alleyway again, the Defendant saw the victim beyond her resistance and her tacking the said victim on the floor; and (c) the said victim her tacks the victim with the face of the said victim for about four weeks in need of closure.

In light of the extent of the victim’s resistance and the attitude of the Defendant’s act to suppress it, and the urgency of the situation at the time, at least the Defendant was aware that there was an injury to the victim in the course of leading or suppressing the victim.

may be seen.

(2) The defendant.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.10.25 2018고합247

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.03.10 2016고합184

-부산고등법원 2017.03.30 2017노24

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018고합338

-부산고등법원 2018.10.24 2018노353