logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.05.15 2014노416
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(도주차량)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not steals the instant vehicle on or around August 17, 2010. However, on or around September 4, 2010, the Defendant was driving the instant vehicle under drinking while driving the vehicle while being parked in a state where the key is displayed in G at a showing city near his/her residence, which was around September 4, 2010.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Prosecutor: (a) kept the larceny part of the instant charges around the trial; and (b) filed an application for amendment to a bill of indictment with the purport that “the Defendant opened and driven the instant vehicle, which was parked in G around September 4, 2010, did not correct the FIst Driving Vehicle owned by the Victim E, which was parked in G at the time of Silung; and (c) cut off the said vehicle at the market price of KRW 4,50,000 by driving it as it is; and (d) the subject of the judgment by this court was changed to the subject of the judgment by permitting it, the lower court was no longer maintained.

In general, the date and time of a crime is not a factor for the specification of the facts charged, and the addition of the ancillary facts charged in this case is based on the statement of the defendant and does not pose a substantial disadvantage to the defendant's defense, and if a crime among the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged is established, it is deemed that the establishment of another crime cannot be recognized, and the two are closely related. Even according to each content of the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged, it is reasonable to view that the primary facts charged and the ancillary facts charged are the same as the basic facts.

Supreme Court Decision 200

arrow