(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.01.20 2014노867 | 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 2016.01.20 2014노867

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)

Text

All appeals filed by the prosecutor against the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, although the defendants could sufficiently recognize the fact that the defendants jointly damaged property as stated in the facts charged, the court below held that the defendant Eul participated in the crime of destroying the property of the defendant Eul.

It is difficult to see

In light of this, the court below acquitted the Defendant on this part of the facts charged, which erred by misunderstanding the facts and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing (for Defendant A), the sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,00) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a criminal procedure to determine the assertion of mistake of facts, the prosecutor must present the evidence that there is a criminal fact in the criminal procedure to determine the assertion of mistake of facts, and the defendant's defense is unreasonable and false

Even if so, it cannot be disadvantageous to the defendant, and criminal facts must be proven by a judge to have high probability beyond reasonable doubt, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt against the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do163, Nov. 30, 2007). Examining the reasons for the part of innocence against the defendants in light of related evidence and records, the court below committed property damage jointly with the defendant Eul for reasons as stated in its reasoning.

evidence that there is insufficient evidence to determine

Therefore, the decision of not guilty of this part of the facts charged is just, and there is no sufficient evidence to deem that this part of the facts charged was beyond the mere suspicion of conviction and reached the degree of recognition of high probability. Thus, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of unfair argument of sentencing (as to Defendant A), the motive, means, and consequence of the instant crime.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 11. 30. 선고 2007도163 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2015.10.14 2014노804

-춘천지방법원 2015.09.16 2014노604

-춘천지방법원 2015.10.21 2015노72

-춘천지방법원 2015.11.25 2015노886

-춘천지방법원 2015.11.18 2014노834