logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.02.18 2015노7041
특수폭행
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was suffering from mental illness (i.e., activity disorder, caution disorder, excessive exercise disorder) due to past domestic violence, etc., but, in relation to the vehicle he leased at the time, the victim D, etc., who was a siren, was driving away from the Defendant, and attempted to gather the vehicle at the scene due to extreme and uneasiness and confusion in order to forcibly open the door of the above vehicle, thereby preventing the instant crime. Thus, it was committed in a state of mental and physical weakness.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of this case’s determination as to the assertion of mental and physical disorder, it is deemed that the victim who was driving away from the Defendant, who did not return the vehicle to the victim D, and the victim G, who was his subordinate employee, demanded the return of the above vehicle to the Defendant. As alleged by the Defendant, the victims were scambling, etc. as they seem to have caused harm to the body of the Defendant, or the victim G was in a state of weak ability to identify things or make decisions due to the mental disorder which the Defendant suffered from the existing illness.

Therefore, it is difficult to see the above argument of the defendant.

B. The Defendant did not have any history of punishment for the same kind of crime, and appears to have committed the instant crime at the time of impulse and friendlyly, and the victims suffered relatively large damage due to the instant crime.

It is difficult to see that there is a relatively old age of the defendant, and that the defendant's age is a relatively old figure, and his mistake is divided and reflected, etc. are favorable to the defendant.

However, even though the defendant was punished for a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes on June 2015, the defendant was not punished for a suspended sentence.

arrow