logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주고등법원 (전주) 2012.12.11 2012노138
인질강도등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The court below convicted Defendant on the basis of only the I’s statement without credibility, although there was no fact that Defendant (1) mismisunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles that the injury to Defendant H was inflicted by the Defendant due to beer disease, which is a dangerous object, was committed by the Defendant. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles.

(B) The Defendant: (a) was arrested, detained, and detained the victim at an international port of cock in the Thailand; (b) however, on April 4, 2010, the Defendant sent the above victim to the cock in the Thailand to the cock in the Thailand; and (c) received KRW 80 million from the above victim at around the 12th day of the same month; and (d) at the time of receiving money, the Defendant was not detained.

Rather, the defendant assisted the victim to return safely to the Republic of Korea, and the victim gave the above money to the defendant with the indication of the auditor, so the facts charged on the premise that the above money is a consideration for release of the victim should be pronounced not guilty, but the court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

(C) Although the Defendant had not threatened the victim with the facts charged, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the guilty of the Defendant.

(D) Property damage against the victim S does not mean that the Defendant ordered V, etc. to damage the victim’s motor vehicle. Even if it is acknowledged that the Defendant ordered the damage, it cannot be deemed that the wall used for the damage is dangerous since the Defendant was in a state of not boarding the above vehicle at the time of the damage of the said motor vehicle.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that the defendant damaged the motor vehicle by carrying dangerous articles is erroneous or erroneous.

arrow