(영문) 춘천지방법원 2019.06.14 2019노243 | 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) 춘천지방법원 2019.06.14 2019노243

절도등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. With respect to the charge of larceny (2018, 166) on October 13, 2017 among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, even though the Defendant intentionally brought about the spread of theft without obtaining the consent of the victim AA.

In addition, the punishment sentenced by the court below (one year of imprisonment and a fine of 3.5 million won) is too unfluent and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant consistently asserts that the investigative agency would drink alcohol at the victim AA’s house with permission from the victim AA, and the victim A made a statement in the court of the court below to the effect that “a person who takes care of the victim’s mind and body is allowed to bring the defendant diving during the process. The reason why the court of the court below reported that a person who takes care of the victim’s mind and body does not go to the police is permitted to bring the defendant diving. However, although the defendant allowed the defendant to bring the defendant diving into the police, the defendant came to go to the highest diving, the victim AA’s legal statement conforms to the defendant’s defense.”

In full view of the circumstances such as the victim AA made a clear statement on the main part of the facts charged as above in the court, and the defendant and the victim AA are in a close relationship with each other, and the victim A was suffering from the 3rd degree disability and was using a large quantity of mental and medical services, it is difficult to reject the credibility of the victim AA’s statement in the court of original instance on the sole basis that the victim A made a statement to the effect that it is different from the above legal statement, and that there is a part that is not well memory in relation to this case.

In addition, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant had the intention to commit a theft without any reasonable doubt, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion of mistake is accepted.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2014.07.22 2014노329

-수원지방법원 2017.02.10 2016고정2391

-서울고등법원 2017.09.19 2017노181

-서울동부지방법원 2013.09.27 2013고정1952

-대법원 1984. 3. 13. 선고 84도37 판결