(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.06.15 2018노392 | 리걸엔진

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) 서울고등법원 2018.06.15 2018노392

살인미수등

Text

The judgment below

The part of the case of the defendant is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

2.1 excessive seizures.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant and the requester for the attachment order (hereinafter “Defendant”) did not have any intention to murder the victims, and even if so, the Defendant had no intention to commit murder.

Even if the defendant did not completely control the defendant, he/she was in excess of his/her discretion and suspended his/her implementation by the method of drinking out the beginning system, so it constitutes an attempted suspension.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine on the facts charged of this case.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (five years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the part of the Defendant case (unfair sentencing) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2) The part of the case for which the request for attachment order was made (misunderstanding of the facts) requires strict punishment as to the Defendant’s crime of this case as planned to deprive the victims of their lives, and it is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for attachment order of the location tracking device even though the Defendant is highly likely to recommit murdering the victims C.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine, whether there was the Defendant’s intentional murder, or (i) whether there was the intent to commit murder in the relevant legal doctrine does not necessarily have to be recognized as the purpose of murder or that of planned murder. It is sufficient or foreseeable to recognize or anticipate the possibility or risk of causing another’s death due to one’s own act, and the recognition or prediction is not only conclusive but also the so-called willful negligence is recognized even if it is uncertain (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do3997, Sept. 28, 2001). In a case where the Defendant asserted that there was no criminal intent to commit murder at the time of committing the crime, and only the Defendant was only the criminal intent of murder or assault at the time of committing the crime.

참조판례

-대법원 2001. 9. 28. 선고 2001도3997 판결

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.10.11 2018노1252

-서울고등법원 2021.01.21 2020노1258

-서울고등법원 (춘천) 2017.04.19 2016노208

-광주고등법원 (전주) 2021.01.20 2020노191

-대구고등법원 2015.10.29 2015노384