logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.01.29 2015노2137
절도등
Text

All of the judgment of the court below in 1, 2 and the judgment of the court below in 3 shall be reversed.

Defendant 1,500,000 won.

Reasons

1. Of the facts charged in this case, the third court below dismissed the prosecution against the defendant as to the assault against the victim P, and sentenced him to the remaining facts charged, and appealed only for the defendant on the ground of unfair sentencing among the judgment below of the court below of the third court. The dismissal part of the prosecution among the judgment below of the court below of the third court did not appeal all the defendant and the prosecutor (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do6793, May 15, 2008, where the defendant did not have any interest in appeal as to the dismissal part of the prosecution as to the above dismissal part, and the dismissal part of the prosecution was excluded from the judgment of the court of this court.

Therefore, the scope of this court's adjudication is limited to the conviction of the first, second and third court's judgment.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

가. 사실 오인 1) 제 1 원 심 판시 범죄사실( 이하 ‘ 제 1 부인 부분’ 이라 한다 )에 대하여 피고인은 서점에서 다른 책들을 계산할 때 F 자서 전을 비닐봉지에 넣어 둔 것을 깜빡 잊고 미처 같이 계산하지 못한 것일 뿐 이를 고의로 절취한 것이 아님에도, 제 1 부인 부분을 유죄로 인정한 제 1 원심판결에는 사실을 오인하여 판결에 영향을 미친 위법이 있다.

2) As to the facts constituting the crime of the second instance judgment (hereinafter “the second denied part”), the Defendant made an unfavorable objection against himself/herself, who is a customer, to himself/herself, and did not assault the victim J, N, or insult the victim, and the second instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the second denied part. The lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3) As to the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below in the 3rd instance (hereinafter “the third denying part”), the Defendant did not have damaged the victim’s glass balance and the contact with the victim’s P, but the court below found the Defendant guilty of the third denying part. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts and rendered a judgment.

arrow