logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.04.18 2014노258
특수절도등
Text

All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal that the court below rendered against the defendant is too unfilled and unfair.

2. The crime of this case is a case where the defendant illegally uses the stolen body card after theft of another person's body card or other property and caused damage to another person by deceiving another person. The defendant committed the crime of this case on March 27, 2013 after being sentenced to a suspended sentence of one year and probation, community service order and an order to attend a lecture on several occasions on the same day, and was sentenced to a suspended sentence of six months due to special larceny, and again committed the crime of this case (the suspended sentence was revoked on January 13, 2014 due to the defendant's non-compliance with the matters to be observed after the probation), and most of the circumstances are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the defendant's failure to receive a letter from the victims. However, there are some favorable circumstances such as the defendant's age and mistake, the amount of damage and some of the damaged items are more favorable to the victims, and the motive and circumstances leading up to the crime of this case, the defendant's age and circumstances leading to the crime, the defendant's age before and after the crime, his occupation, family relation, and circumstances, etc.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, the part of the lower judgment’s application of the statutes is obvious that “the choice of imprisonment for each crime except for special larceny under Article 331(2) and (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 347(1) of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, Article 70(1)3 of the Specialized Credit Finance Business Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act is a clerical error.” Thus, pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure, “the ex officio” is a clerical error.

arrow