logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 (춘천) 2013.10.23 2013노141
살인
Text

Defendant

In addition, all appeals filed by the respondent for attachment order and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Part 1 of the Defendant case) The first instance court’s decision on unreasonable sentencing ( Both sides) is the Defendant and the person to whom the attachment order was requested (hereinafter “Defendant”).

As to the punishment sentenced to imprisonment (13 years of imprisonment), the defendant asserts that it is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair. 2) The defendant, under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime of this case, was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder, and the court below erred in the misapprehension of it.

B. It is unreasonable for the lower court to dismiss the Defendant’s request for the attachment order of this case, even if the part of the case requesting the attachment order (public prosecutor) to be found dangerous

2. Determination

A. According to the records of the judgment on the defendant's mental disorder or mental retardation, it is recognized that the defendant had drinking alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, but in light of the circumstances indicated in the records, such as the background of the crime and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, it is not deemed that the defendant under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crime in this case, lost the ability to distinguish things and make decisions, or caused the weak ability to do so, and thus, the defendant'

B. The Defendant’s conviction on the assertion of unfair sentencing by both parties is an element for sentencing favorable to the Defendant, including the fact that the Defendant recognized the instant crime from the investigation process to the trial of the trial of the case, and the Defendant was only a criminal record of minor fines, and that the instant crime resulted in contingent occurrence.

However, the crime of this case is committed by murdering the part of the victim's knife at an open place, and the nature of the crime is not good, the victim's bereaved family members also suffered mental shock and pain to the knife due to the death of the victim, and the defendant does not take any particular measures to recover the damage.

arrow