(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.04.11 2013노367

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) 서울남부지방법원 2013.04.11 2013노367

절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

1. The sentence imposed by the court below (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable, due to the summary of the grounds for appeal.

2. Ex officio determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal, the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below are examined as to larceny thief, and the summary of this part of the facts of the facts of the crime as indicated in the judgment of the court below. The defendant found 11:30 as of the lower day of November 2012, 2012, at the street of the K office of the victim J of Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, at the location where the full-scale construction materials of the office are installed, 1.50,000 won at the victim-owned alkinium bridge installed in the location where the full-scale construction materials of the office are installed, and alkinium alkinium alkinium alkbbbbbbbbbbb, which caused the collapse of the surrounding supervision. On December 9, 2012, the defendant found the victim-owned alkinium albb, which was installed with the full-scale construction materials installed in the office.

B. When the confession of the defendant is the only evidence against him, it shall not be admitted as evidence of guilt. Thus, in case where the defendant is found guilty on the basis of the confession of the defendant without any supporting evidence, it shall be deemed that there is an error of law affecting the conclusion of the judgment

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7835, Nov. 29, 2007). Since substantive concurrent crimes are several crimes, reinforcement evidence for confession as to each crime should be required.

C. The court below found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged including this part of the facts charged, and the court below did not find any supporting evidence except the confession of the defendant as to this part of the facts charged, even after examining the evidence of conviction as stated by the court below and other records.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is guilty only with the confession of the defendant without supporting evidence.

참조판례

-대법원 2007. 11. 29. 선고 2007도7835 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2013.02.14 2013고단36

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2016.04.01 2015고단3591

-제주지방법원 2012.10.18 2012고단1073

-서울북부지방법원 2019.02.14 2018고단1747

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2019.09.06 2019고단744