logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.04.28 2014노3208
사기등
Text

Part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a compensation order, and part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal (unfair form of punishment) of each of the original judgments (the first instance judgment: Imprisonment with prison labor for 8 months, 2 months: Imprisonment for 4 months and 3 months: Imprisonment with prison labor for 3 months) is too unreasonable.

The court of the court of the ex officio judgment decided to consolidate each appeal case of the judgment below against the defendant, and the prosecutor tried to examine the case of the judgment of the court of the court of the first instance [2014dan2455], and the name of the crime as to the fraud of paragraph (2) of the crime in the court of the first instance as "thief", and Article 329 of the Criminal Act as "Article 329 of the Criminal Act", and applied for amendments to a bill of amendment with the following descriptions

However, since the changed portion as above and each of the remaining crimes in the judgment of the court below found guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, a single sentence should be sentenced pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained in its entirety.

【Revised Indictment】

2. On February 23, 2014, at around 23:30, Defendant A, who was aware of the Internet game in the “AEPC bank” located in Daejeon-gu Daejeon-gu, the victim AF, the same AG, and the same AH, and the victim AH, who was aware of the Internet game, runs away from the phone after a cell phone was opened up with “to return the cell phone after a locking out of the cell phone.” As the victim AF market price was 300,000 won, the victim AF market price was 1 cell phone, 200,000 won, and the victim H market price was 70,000,000 won.

In conclusion, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the compensation order, the part of the judgment of the court of second instance against the defendant and the part of the judgment of the court of second instance on the grounds of the above ex officio reversal. Thus, without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court of first instance on the defendant except the compensation order among the

arrow