(영문) 대전고등법원 2015.04.10 2015노88 | 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) 대전고등법원 2015.04.10 2015노88

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

on the date of seizure, Dr. B.O. (No. 1).

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (four years of imprisonment) on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant ex officio, prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the court below, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with the content that the name of the crime is "Habitual larceny" from "Violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes," and "Article 329 of the Criminal Act" changed the applicable provisions to "Articles 332, 330, and 331 (1) of the Criminal Act," and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained further

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and the judgment below is reversed, and it is again decided as follows.

Criminal facts

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the evidence recognized by the court (including the determination of habituality) are the same as the corresponding columns of the judgment below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

Application of Statutes

1. Articles 332, 330, and 331(1) of the Criminal Act, inclusive, with respect to applicable Articles of the Act and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. Article 35 of the Criminal Act among repeated crimes;

1. In accordance with the purport of the decision of Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunGa16, 19, 23 (Merger) rendered on February 26, 2015, the sentence against the defendant is determined, such as: (a) the fact that the original defendant had changed the name of the crime and applicable provisions of the law; (b) the defendant has led to the confession of all the criminal facts of this case from the original court to the trial; and (c) the defendant has expressed that the mistake has been divided and reflected; and (d) some of the damaged items that the defendant stolen were returned to the victims.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률 제5조의4 제6항

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2015.05.22 2014노1503

-서울고등법원 2015.06.11 2015노63

-서울고등법원 2015.04.14 2014노3970

-인천지방법원 2015.03.20 2015노316

-서울고등법원 2015.03.25 2014노3883