(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.02.05 2014노3437 | 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) 서울고등법원 2015.02.05 2014노3437

강도강간미수등

Text

The judgment below

The part of the defendant's case shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for ten years.

For the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of attempted robbery and rape as indicated in the judgment below, the defendant and the person requesting an attachment order (hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") did not deduct the victim D from the victim D, and there was no fact that the victim attempted to rape.

Doshe, with respect to the robbery in the judgment of the court below, there was no fact that the victim F head several times or that the victim F head was committed.

B. The Defendant with mental disorder committed each of the instant crimes under the influence of alcohol.

C. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (12 years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

It is improper for the court below to issue an order to disclose personal information and an order to attach an electronic tracking device to the defendant.

2. Determination

A. In the judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the defendant alleged that "no one has committed rape against victim D" and "no one has committed any crime against the victim F's head several times or his part above." The court below rejected the defendant's assertion in light of the facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated. The judgment of the court below is just in light of the above evidence, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged by the defendant.

The Defendant asserted in the trial that “The Defendant did not take the victim’s son, son, and son.” However, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is not reasonable, since the Defendant was able to recognize the fact that the Defendant had taken the victim’s son, son, and son from the victim D, and that the Defendant took the victim’s son, son, and son.”

The judgment of the court below on the argument of mental disorder.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.03.13 2014노3625

-서울고등법원 2013.09.12 2013노2268

-서울고등법원(춘천) 2020.10.28 2020노45

-서울고등법원 2013.06.04 2013노1051

-서울고등법원 2015.01.29 2014노2064