logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
서울북부지방법원 2016.04.15 2016노143
폭행등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The court below dismissed the public prosecution as to insult of the facts charged of this case and convicted the remainder of the facts charged of assault. The prosecutor appealed for the reason that sentencing was unfair. Although the prosecutor stated the scope of appeal as "in whole" but it is obvious that the reason for appeal was unfair for sentencing, even if the prosecutor's appeal was accepted, the result does not affect the dismissal part of the public prosecution by the court below (the prosecutor stated in the reasons for appeal that the part dismissing the public prosecution of this case is excluded from the part dismissing the public prosecution of this case because the summary of the facts charged of this case is limited to the facts charged of this case as stated in the court below's decision). Accordingly, the part dismissing the public prosecution by the court below

As such, the scope of this Court's judgment shall be limited to the remaining guilty part of the judgment below, excluding the dismissed part of the prosecution separately finalized as above.

2. The decision of the court below on the gist of the grounds for appeal (two years of suspended sentence in six months of imprisonment) is deemed to be too unhued and unfair.

3. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the principle of court-oriented trials and the principle of direct determination, it is reasonable to respect the determination of sentencing in cases where there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). The Defendant does not oppose the majority of the criminal records of having been punished for the same crime, and is committed the instant crime, and in particular, it seems that the Defendant continuously violated the legal order, including the instant crime, on November 2014, and continuously violates the law and order, such as five times or more of violent crimes, and the Defendant’s responsibility for the instant crime is not attributable to the victim, and the restoration of damage is not achieved.