logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구고등법원 2014.05.29 2013노628
강도상해등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

(1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles (1) Defendants pretended as if the victims were forced to purchase smartphones with the remaining accomplices (hereinafter referred to as the “defendants, etc.”) and the Defendant, etc., and conspired to acquire money from S andO invested in the purchase price of the middle and high smartphones and carried out it. Thus, regardless of whether such act constitutes fraud against S andO, the crime of robbery against the victim is not established.

(2) The Defendants did not act in collusion to commit the instant crime, such as the crime at the time of the original trial, and did not commit the act of causing injury to the victim who did not resist any resistance in the process of Defendant B’s taking on hand.

(3) The injury suffered by the victim due to the instant crime does not constitute an injury to the crime of robbery, because it is minor.

(4) Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty.

In light of the fact that Defendant A was involved in the instant crime under the economic lack of unreasonable sentencing, and that the Defendant did not exercise violence against the victim, the lower court’s sentence (four years of imprisonment) against the said Defendant is too unreasonable.

Defendant

In light of the fact that the victim did not exercise violence against the victim and that it is against the depth of the victim, the court below's sentence (4 years of imprisonment) against the above defendant is too unreasonable.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, whether the defendant et al. conspired with the victim to obtain money from S andO in collusion with the victim for misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the crime of this case cannot be deemed to have been pretended in collusion with the victim to obtain money from S andO.

arrow