logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.03.14 2016노4544
무고등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. The circumstances favorable to the Defendant are as follows: (a) the Defendant recognized the instant crime at a late time; (b) the Defendant was indicted or punished by the Defendant for the instant crime; (c) the Defendant did not occur until the date of the prosecution or punishment; (d) the Defendant agreed with a person who was under no charge through the conciliation procedure in the relevant civil case; and (e) the Defendant’s buried wastes were entirely removed and restored

However, the crime of this case committed the crime of this case, although the defendant himself committed the crime of reclaiming wastes without permission on the land owned by the person under his own possession, but the person under his own control committed the crime of this case, and the person under his control committed the crime of this case

A complaint is filed and the nature of the crime is not good, and the defendant agreed with the defendant. However, the crime of false accusation is a crime of which the State's adequate exercise of the State's right to discipline is a legal interest and protection of the law, and thus it cannot be considered as the main reason for sentencing. Moreover, the defendant did not appear in the court of original instance to have been present at the court of original instance to the effect that the defendant again appeared to be able to reflect after the agreement, but rather, he stated that the defendant was seriously punished by the person who was in danger of the defendant. Although the wastes buried by the defendant were recovered from the original state, it was merely done by the person in charge of military administration and there are no other materials to regard the defendant's burden of expenses, it is unfair that the court below's punishment imposed on the defendant within the scope of sentencing guidelines is limited to the reasonable discretion and is too unfair.

arrow