(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노2794

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노2794

한국마사회법위반등

Text

The appeal by the prosecutor and the defendant shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (one year and four months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unfair.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In addition, the defense counsel did not assert that the grounds of appeal violated jurisdiction in the appellate trial, and the defendant's "written application for transfer" was transferred to Seoul after being arrested at the place of residence to the court of Seoul, so the present location of the defendant should be excluded from the elements of judgment in the territorial jurisdiction, and the territorial jurisdiction of this case is the Jeju District Court.

With respect to the grounds for appeal that are not the grounds for ex officio examination among the grounds for appeal, it is subject to adjudication by the appellate court only when they are included in the petition of appeal or the grounds for appeal submitted within a lawful period (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Do1234, Sept. 22, 1998). The above grounds for appeal do not constitute the grounds for appeal, but the defendant's defense counsel files an application for resumption of argument to the effect that the Seoul detention center, which is the present address of the defendant, has violated jurisdiction

On the other hand, Article 320 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "the court shall not make a pronouncement of violation of jurisdiction with respect to territorial jurisdiction, unless the defendant makes a request," and "the request for violation of jurisdiction shall be made before the defendant makes a statement about the case to the court of first instance" (Paragraph 2). Even if the court of first instance did not have territorial jurisdiction over the case at the time of the prosecution, the defect of violation of jurisdiction by making a statement about the defendant's case without the defendant's application for violation of territorial jurisdiction is cured. It is clearly stated in the record that the defendant has not made a request for violation of territorial jurisdiction in the court of first instance.

Therefore, the above argument is without merit to examine the other issues.

참조조문

-형사소송법 제320조

참조판례

-대법원 1998. 9. 22. 선고 98도1234 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2013.10.15 2012노4175

-대구지방법원 2013.12.06 2013노1796

-인천지방법원 2014.12.19 2014고단5362

-부산지방법원 2013.06.10 2012고정5910

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2013.11.15 2013고합167