logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.11.15 2018노419
제주특별자치도설치및국제자유도시조성을위한특별법위반
Text

The judgment below

The part of the confiscation against the defendant is reversed.

The remaining appeal by the defendant is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although the mobile phone (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone”) that was seized of the gist of the grounds for appeal does not constitute a subject of confiscation, since the Defendant was not, or intended to, provided or intended to provide for the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The sentence imposed by the lower court (6 months of imprisonment and two years of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, it is not sufficient to recognize that the mobile phone of this case was used as a contact method prior to the commencement of the crime of this case, but it constitutes an article that the defendant has actually contributed to the execution of the crime of this case or an article that the defendant prepared to use in the crime of this case and failed to actually use. There is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem the mobile phone of this case to be subject to confiscation because it was an article provided or intended to be provided by the defendant for the crime of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or sentenced to confiscation. Thus, the defendant's mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as to this point has merit

B. In full view of the various circumstances, which are the conditions for sentencing as indicated in the instant case regarding the unfair argument of sentencing, the Defendant’s argument of sentencing is without merit, since the sentence that the lower court sentenced to the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. The defendant among the judgment below pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow