logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.10.17 2013노2634
살인미수등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing the prosecutor’s request regarding the part of the Defendant case and the part regarding the case regarding which the request for attachment order was filed.

Despite Article 9 (8) of the Act on Probation and Electronic Monitoring, etc. of Specific Criminal Offenders, this part was excluded from the scope of the trial of the court, as there was no benefit in appeal as to the part of the claim for attachment order.

(See Supreme Court Decision 82Do2823, 82Do611 delivered on January 18, 1983). 2. Summary of the grounds for appeal

A. In the event of mistake of facts or misapprehension of the legal principle, the Defendant did not have had the intention to murder against the victim, but the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine that recognized the Defendant as liable for the crime of attempted murder, rather than the liability for violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the allegations of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, and the lower court rejected the said assertion by clearly explaining the judgment on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel in detail under the title of

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the fact-finding and judgment by the court below is justified, and it is not possible to find any error of mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles as

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. There are extenuating circumstances, such as the Defendant’s mistake against himself/herself and the agreement with the victim regarding the assertion on unfair sentencing.

However, the crime of murder in this case is related to the passage of the victim and the vehicle that the defendant could not know until before the crime in this case is committed.

arrow