(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.06.12 2014노3632 | 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 2015.06.12 2014노3632

재물손괴등

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although it is obvious that the defendant misunderstanding of facts has broken the door of the victim's house and damaged glass, the judgment of the court below which acquitted him of the damage to property among the facts charged in this case is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of six months of imprisonment imposed by the lower court and the sentence of two years of suspended execution is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. (1) The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had damaged the victim’s property on the ground that the victim stated that “the Defendant was not a witness to the scene where the Defendant was a sloping,” the content of the statement is deemed to be the person who escaped as well as the person who was presumed to be the Defendant, and that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant had damaged the victim’s property.

(2) The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial for the judgment of the court for the trial is the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is based on the evidence with probative value sufficient for the judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, and if there is no evidence to establish such a degree of conviction, the suspicion of guilt is against the defendant even if there is no evidence to establish such a conviction.

Even if there is no choice but to determine the interest of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do4305, Feb. 25, 2000), a thorough examination of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the original instance in light of the records is difficult to find that this part of the facts charged is sufficiently proven without reasonable doubt.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding facts, and this part of the

B. The argument on unfair sentencing is made.

참조판례

-대법원 2000. 2. 25. 선고 99도4305 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2020.05.15 2019노3267

-부산지방법원 2019.12.20 2019노1555

-대구지방법원 2015.07.01 2014노4247

-의정부지방법원 2019.08.23 2018노2363

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.14 2018노1071