(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2015노43

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2015노43

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Nos. 1, 4, 5, 7 through 10, of seized evidence.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Inmisunderstanding of facts, the Defendant committed the crime indicated in the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant crimes”) except for the larceny of the victim E (hereinafter “instant crimes”).

A) There was no fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime. Around June 1, 2014, the Defendant returned to the place where the instant crime C was committed is due to the fact that he/she was leaving the Defendant’s accurate domicile of the debtor AC against the Defendant. L and M, a witness of the instant crime, stated in the original court that he/she would be aware of the Defendant himself/herself as the offender. Therefore, even though there was no evidence as to the instant crime C, the lower court erred by recognizing the Defendant guilty of larceny, except for the intrusion upon residence, on June 1, 2014, and on June 3, 2014. 2) The sentence of unfair sentencing (two years of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The lower court determined that, in the event that a person who committed a crime in violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes) committed a intrusion upon residence as a means of the crime, the act of intrusion upon residence does not constitute a separate crime from the crime of habitual larceny, etc., and, therefore, the crime of intrusion upon residence does not constitute a separate crime of intrusion upon residence among the facts charged in the instant case. However, the relation of the crime is an ex officio judgment by the full bench, and as long as the crime of habitual larceny and intrusion upon residence was charged together, the crime of intrusion upon residence should not be determined as innocence in the instant facts charged, but should be tried as a comprehensive conviction and convicted.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the defendant and the prosecutor ex officio, the name of the case was examined by the prosecutor, and the name of the case was examined by the prosecutor.

참조조문

-특정범죄 가중처벌 등에 관한 법률

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2015. 5. 15. 선고 2015노43,2015초기100 판결

-대구지방법원 2010.12.16 2010노3875

-대법원 2015. 10. 15. 선고 2015도8169 판결

-대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2015노1955

-청주지방법원 2020.02.14 2019고합174