2013No36 (a) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collective deadly weapons)

2013No696 (Joint Intimidation)

(b) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (collectively weapons, etc.);

Residential Intrusion)

(c)thief;

(d) Performance of official duties;

(e) Violation of the Aggravated Punishment Act;

Violence, etc.)

(f) Damage to public goods;

A

Defendant

Completion exchange, face-to-face visit, prosecution (public prosecution), Kim Jong-Un (public trial)

Attorney V (National Election)

1. Western branch court of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2012Gohap1357 Decided December 18, 2012);

Resolution

2. Daegu District Court Decision 2012Gohap3212, 3757 (Consolidated) Decided February 15, 2013;

2013 High Court Decision 18 (Joint Judgment)

April 26, 2013

All judgment of the court below shall be reversed. Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles

The Defendant committed the instant crime in a state of mental disability under the influence of alcohol.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

Each court below's punishment (the first court's judgment: imprisonment with prison labor for August and 2: fine for 4 million won) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

Ex officio, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold two appeals jointly. Each of the crimes of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant is related to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act and shall be sentenced to a single sentence within the scope of the term of punishment increased by concurrent crimes in accordance with Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. In this regard, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

3. Judgment on misapprehension of legal principles

Although the judgment of the court below has the above reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of the court of this Court. According to the records, it is acknowledged that the defendant was suffering from ordinary alcohol dependence after he committed the crime of this case, but in light of the defendant's main quantity, circumstances of the crime, means and method, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, etc., it does not seem that the defendant had weak ability to distinguish things or make decisions under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, and it is again decided as follows after oral argument.

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting an offense and evidence recognized by this court is identical to each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, it is cited in accordance with Article 369 of the Criminal Procedure Act

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 283(1) of the Criminal Act, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Articles 3(1) and 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the occupation of intrusion upon a dangerous object), Article 329(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 141(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 5-10(1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the occupation of intimidation and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for repeated crimes;

Article 35 (Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (Intimidation by Group, Deadly Weapons, etc.) of the Criminal Act, and Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (within the scope of the proviso of Article 42 in relation to the crime of intrusion upon residence, such as group, deadly weapon

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The punishment provided for in the former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act and the punishment provided for in the Act on the Punishment of Violences, etc. with the most severe crime (aggravating groups, deadly weapons, etc.) shall be aggravated for concurrent crimes within the scope of the proviso of

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1448, Apr. 1, 200

The reason for sentencing is under circumstances that the defendant is economically difficult, is not good, the defendant is against himself while making a confession of all the crimes in this case, in the case of larceny, the damaged goods are recovered and the victim's U is not wanting to be punished, and the defendant's agreement was submitted for the first time in the trial. As the factors for sentencing favorable to the defendant, the defendant has a majority of criminal offenses in the same kind and commits the crime in this case during the repeated offense period, and the defendant has committed the crime in this case, and the defendant has a big risk in the means and method of the crime, such as threatening to intrude upon his residence or threaten bus articles on driving, etc., taking into account the circumstances such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, motive and conduct, motive of the crime in this case, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

The names of judges of the presiding judge.

Judge power failure

Judges Suh-hee