logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2019노80
절도등
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court’s punishment (7 million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment and the prosecutor together.

The crime of this case is an unfavorable condition that the Defendant was sentenced by this court on July 7, 2017 to imprisonment with prison labor for 6 months and 2 years of suspended execution for violating the Road Traffic Act on the following grounds: (a) the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was under the suspension of the execution of the sentence; (b) the Defendant obstructed the victim’s convenience store business by avoiding disturbance by taking advantage of breathing the victim’s talking the workers, and stolen one caner, which was under the custody of the convenience store coolant; (c) the Defendant committed the crime of this case, even though the judgment became final and conclusive on August 1, 2017, in view of the method and content of the crime, etc.

On the other hand, when the defendant was in a trial, all of the crimes of this case are led to confessions and reflects his mistake, and in the case of larceny, the number of damages is minor and the damage is recovered.

In full view of the aforementioned circumstances and the equity of sentencing with cases of the same or similar nature as above, as well as the age, character and conduct, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime, the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too heavy as alleged by the Defendant, or it cannot be deemed unfair because it is too unreasonable as it is alleged by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the defendant and the prosecutor's above assertion are not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the appeal filed by the defendant and the prosecutor is groundless, and all of them are dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow