(영문) 대전지방법원 2021.03.24 2021노395 | 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 2021.03.24 2021노395

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(위험운전치상)등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant supports a de facto marriage spouse and his/her children, and if the facts of each of the crimes of this case were committed, all of the crimes of this case were committed, and it is against the depth of the mistake by living in prison for seven months, and the victim F and H agree with the defendant, and the above victims were not punished against the defendant, and the amount equivalent to the amount of damage caused by the public goods that the above victims caused the loss was compensated, it is unfair that the court below's punishment (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Under the current Criminal Procedure Act, which takes the principle of trial-oriented and directness, there exists an area unique to the first instance court’s determination of sentencing. As such, it is reasonable to respect the first instance court’s sentencing in a case where there is no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court, and the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260, Jul. 23, 2015). (b) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the first instance court returned to the instant case, and the first instance court determined the sentence against the Defendant with due care. The circumstances emphasized by the Defendant in the first instance court appear to have been sufficiently considered in the lower court’s determination of the sentence. In so doing, the lower court’s determination that not only did the Defendant committed each of the instant crimes while under suspension of execution due to interference with official duties, but also did not change the nature of the crime in light of the substance of the crime and the circumstances after the crime, and that the Defendant’s new motive and scope of sentencing were not submitted.

shall not be appointed by a person.

3. Conclusion.

참조판례

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

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2020.05.13 2020노538

-전주지방법원 2021.04.08 2020노1808

-대전지방법원 2020.12.23 2020노3487

-대전지방법원 2020.08.28 2019노2739

-대전지방법원 2020.11.25 2019노3780