logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.04.23 2015도2956
업무방해등
Text

The appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A person who has filed a statement of grounds for appeal may withdraw part of the grounds for appeal stated in the grounds for appeal on the court date, but if the grounds for appeal are withdrawn, it may be subject to a restriction that may not be deemed the grounds for appeal again. Thus, the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal

(2) According to the records, the defendant and his defense counsel stated the above statement of grounds for appeal on February 26, 2003 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do6834, Feb. 26, 2003). According to the records, the defendant and his defense counsel stated the above statement of grounds for appeal on the first day of appeal, and the court below stated that "the grounds for appeal is an unreasonable sentencing, but the defendant's grounds for appeal have been detained," and the court below rejected the defendant's appeal on the sole ground of unfair sentencing, and dismissed the defendant's appeal without making a decision on the mistake of facts.

Examining such factual relations in light of the legal principles on the withdrawal of the grounds for appeal as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the Defendant clearly withdrawn the allegation of mistake among the grounds for appeal.

Meanwhile, while the defendant cited facts in the grounds of appeal, in this case where a defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with labor for less than ten years, mistake of facts cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal, and the grounds of appeal lawfully withdrawn at the original court cannot be considered as the grounds of appeal again. Thus, the above grounds of appeal by the defendant can be deemed to be erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on withdrawal of the grounds of appeal, or omitting judgment on the grounds of appeal by mistake

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8477 Decided September 30, 2010). However, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court that maintained by the lower court, all of the facts charged in the instant case can be found guilty.

arrow