(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.07.07 2015노2538 | 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) 대구지방법원 2016.07.07 2015노2538

재물손괴등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Where there are several orders of the judgment, such as partial conviction and partial acquittal of the case prosecuted at the same time as a concurrent crime within the scope of the judgment of this court, the part included in one of the judgment may be appealed separately from other parts, and the part not appealed by both parties becomes separate and final. Thus, where only the prosecutor appealeds the part of the judgment of the first instance which pronounced not guilty or partially guilty of the concurrent crime, and only the prosecutor appealed the part not guilty. In this case, the part of the judgment of conviction for which the defendant and the prosecutor did not appeal has not appealed after the expiration of the appeal period, which became final and conclusive at the appellate court (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do10985, Nov. 25, 2010, etc.). In this case, the court below rendered a conviction as to insult of the facts charged in this case, and rendered a judgment of innocence as to damage to property, and since only the prosecutor appealed the part of the judgment of the court below and the aforementioned part of the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is separated and finalized.

2. According to the statement by the victim of the gist of the grounds for appeal, the present text of this case was destroyed by the defendant's act in full view of the following: (a) the present text of this case was not less than one year after the replacement; (b) there was no defect in the present text of this case; and (c) there was a defect in the present text of this case due to the defendant's act; and (d) it was damaged and replaced by the digital ex

required by the court.

However, the judgment of the court below that acquitted the defendant on the ground that the present door was not replaced, etc. is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. On November 6, 2014, the Defendant’s summary of the facts charged is the victim C (n.e., the victim C) under subparagraph 207 of the same Article.

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 11. 25. 선고 2010도10985 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.09.13 2018노440

-부산지방법원 2017.06.30 2017노674

-춘천지방법원 2017.04.19 2015노1155

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.19 2015노4986

-부산지방법원 2016.06.24 2015노4692