logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.09 2017노1113
폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동공갈)등
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

As to the crimes No. 1 and No. 2 in the judgment of the defendant, the crime No. 3 and No. 4 in the judgment of the court below.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, Defendant 1 merely delivered C and D’s horses to F, and did not solicit F to engage in sexual traffic in collusion with the said C and D, and did not participate in, or conspired to commit, the larceny and special larceny.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (for the crimes Nos. 1 and 2 as indicated in its holding, 2 years of suspended execution, 40 hours of lecture attendance order, 3 and 4 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s above sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. The relevant legal doctrine provides that “a crime for which judgment to face with imprisonment without prison labor or a heavier punishment has become final and conclusive and a crime committed before such judgment has become final and conclusive” constitutes concurrent crimes prescribed in the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. In such cases, a crime for which judgment has not been rendered among concurrent crimes under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act and a crime for which judgment has become final and conclusive shall be sentenced in consideration of equity in cases where a crime for which judgment has not yet become final and conclusive cannot be adjudicated concurrently with a crime for which judgment has already become final and conclusive, it is reasonable to interpret that a sentence shall not be imposed concurrently in consideration of equity or mitigation or exemption of such punishment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1203, May 16, 2014). Meanwhile, according to evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 2 years and not more than 2 years and not more than 3 years and not more than 16 years and a final and conclusive sentence of imprisonment with prison labor for not more than 2 years 16 months, etc.”.

arrow