(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노1634 | 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) 대전지방법원 2016.10.13 2016노1634

특수절도

Text

The judgment below

All convictions against Defendant A and B shall be reversed.

Defendant

A, Defendant, and Defendant, respectively, shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and eight months.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part concerning the No. 1, 5, 8, and 10 of the annexed list No. 1, 5, and 10 in the judgment of the court below, Defendant A1 was erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to probative value, although it is difficult to view that the Defendants committed a theft of property in cooperation with time and place, ② the Defendant cannot be deemed to have contributed in essence to each of the crimes in this part, and ③ there is no perception as to whether there was an implicit or a conspiracy on each of the charges in this part, and even though there was no perception as to whether there was more than two persons at the site, the court below found the Defendant guilty of this part of the charges. The circumstances presented by the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to probative value.

B) According to the statement in the statement of reasons for appeal submitted by the defense counsel for the parts listed in the annexed sheet Nos. 2 through 4, 9, 11 through 15 of the judgment of the court below, the part as to the annexed sheet Nos. 3 and 4 of the court below in the judgment of the court below is deemed not to be erroneous or misapprehension of legal principles as to the annexed list Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 in the above statement of reasons for appeal. However, although the defendant did not have an intention to jointly process, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged against the defendant, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the probative value, and it is so unfair that the court below's conviction used as evidence despite the lack of probative value as evidence to prove the defendant. 2) The above statement of reasons for appeal is unfair.

B. The lower court’s imprisonment (one year of imprisonment) against Defendant B (unfair punishment) is too excessive.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2016.08.18 2016노570

-전주지방법원 2020.04.23 2019노1486

-부산고등법원 2015.10.14 2014노598

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.26 2013노2506

-서울고등법원 2020.01.09 2019노2102