(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노2875 | 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) 광주지방법원 2020.02.06 2019노2875

사기등

Text

The judgment below

Part concerning Defendant B and D shall be reversed.

Defendant

B Imprisonment with prison labor of eight months, and Defendant D.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is unreasonable that the punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of eight months for the defendant A, the imprisonment of one year for the defendant B, the imprisonment of eight months for the defendant C and the imprisonment of six months for the defendant D) is too unreasonable;

2. Determination on Defendant A and C’s appeal

A. In a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared with the first instance court, and the sentencing of the first instance court does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). B.

The lower court determined punishment against the said Defendants by taking account of favorable circumstances, such as the fact that Defendant C committed the instant crime during the period of repeated crime and the fact that the said Defendants did not agree with the victim, and that Defendant A did not have any record of punishment exceeding the fine, and that there was no record of punishment after 2010.

C. Based on the legal principles as seen earlier, there is no change in the above sentencing conditions compared with the original judgment, and even considering the following factors, including the age, character and conduct of the above Defendants, the motive of the crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment against the above Defendants is too inappropriate to have exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion.

Therefore, the above Defendants’ assertion of unreasonable sentencing cannot be accepted.

3. The lower court’s determination on Defendant B and D’s appeal is that the nature of the instant crime is not good, and that the said Defendants did not agree with the victim is disadvantageous.

On the other hand, the above Defendants appear to reflect their mistakes, and they deposited KRW 20 million by Defendant B for the recovery of victim's damage in the trial court, and KRW 17 million by Defendant D, and Defendant D did not have the same criminal record for Defendant B, and Defendant D did not have any record of criminal punishment prior to the instant crime.

Any other cases.

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 7. 23. 선고 2015도3260 전원합의체 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2019.05.02 2019노408

-창원지방법원 2017.10.11 2017노1096

-대구지방법원 2020.12.23 2020노1367

-서울남부지방법원 2021.04.05 2020노1411

-광주지방법원 2019.06.13 2019노813