logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2014.02.20 2013노3074
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, and imprisonment for a short of one year and six months is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B’s imprisonment with prison labor for a maximum of two years, and imprisonment for a short of one year and six months is too unreasonable.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the following facts: (a) the Defendants’ age is contrary to and not repeated; (b) the Defendants’ age has no record of criminal punishment; (c) some damaged items, such as automobiles, among the damaged items of each of the crimes of this case, were returned to the victims; (d) the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case even though they received juvenile protective disposition (Defendant A 11 and Defendant B5) at several times in the court below, taking into account all these circumstances into account; and (e) the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case. The Defendants committed the crimes of this case, regardless of the place and objects of the crime; (c) the Defendants committed each of the crimes of this case, committed the theft of various goods without the license; and (d) paid the principal amount of the vehicle using a stolen credit card without the driver’s license; (d) the victims want to punish the Defendants; and (e) the victims’ personality and behavior, environment, motive, means and consequence of the crime; and (e) the conditions of the crime before and after the crime.

3. In conclusion, since the defendants' appeal of this case is without merit, all of the appeals are dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[However, since each of the "X" listed in the 4th, 3, 21, 6, and 11 of the judgment below is a clerical error of each "AO", and the "victim W" listed in the 4th, 3th, is a clerical error of "victim W", it is obvious that the "victim W" is a clerical error of "victim W Possession (victim AG ownership)," it is corrected ex officio in accordance with Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.

arrow