(영문) 부산고등법원 2017.04.26 2016노720 | 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) 부산고등법원 2017.04.26 2016노720

강도등

Text

All appeals filed by prosecutors and defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misunderstanding of the facts (guilty: robbery) did not allow the victim to omit the victim in mixed water by giving “non-other 500” drinking water containing exempted ingredients to the victim, and did not bring the victim’s documents and cash to the victim.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on this part of the facts charged is erroneous.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (three years and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that a person other than the defendant has destroyed a structure used as a residence and is still under way other than the defendant by spreading organic solvents, such as gasoline, vision, etc., in front of the lower entrance entrance of the school entrance where the defendant was used as the victim, by setting fire in front of the lower entrance of the entrance.

The judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by mistake.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court as to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the victim’s statement is credibility.

According to the evidence of the court below, including the statement of the victim and the evidence of the court below, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant committed robbery, such as this part of the facts charged.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of robbery is just and there is no violation of law due to mistake.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) The credibility of the victim’s statement that the Defendant lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant around December 2013, and that the Defendant was given a pre-tax contract, a house owner’s written consent, and a loan certificate under the name of the Defendant. ① The victim’s statement from the investigation agency to the court of the trial at the trial at the time of the party.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2018.08.30 2017노1403

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.16 2016노5389

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.22 2017노2510

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.14 2016노3441

-부산고등법원 (창원) 2018.03.14 2017노317