logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.01.10 2019노1557
재물손괴등
Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) The Defendant was found to have entered a house with the glass window already damaged due to misunderstanding of facts, and there was no damage to the glass window by using sprinks on the date and time stated in the facts charged.

Dob. The sentence of unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant asserted the same purport in the lower court, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged after comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined.

Based on the same evidence, while the victim testified to the effect favorable to the defendant in the court below, the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant as the mother of the defendant. If the victim's statement appears to be more objective immediately after the case, the court below is just in finding guilty of this part of the facts charged, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's assertion about this is without merit.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant already committed a crime, such as assaulting the victim who is ambiguous over several times, but even though the victim did not want the punishment of the Defendant once, the Defendant committed the instant crime again despite the Defendant continued to have been subjected to the punishment. The Defendant’s crime of this case is an anti-humanistic crime that habitually assaults his mother, the victim who committed the instant crime seems to have suffered considerable pain due to the Defendant’s act, and the Defendant committed an assault against the victim due to alcohol addiction. However, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant committed an assaulting the victim under the influence of alcohol.

arrow