logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.04.24 2015노340
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

When committing the instant crime, the Defendant was in lack of the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental problems, such as mental division, etc.

The sentencing of the lower court (three years of imprisonment) on the basis of an unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

Judgment

An ex officio determination prosecutor filed an application for changes in the indictment with respect to changes in the name of the crime to "Habitual thief", "Article 5-4 (6) and (1) of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and Article 329 of the Criminal Act" as "Article 332 and Article 329 of the Criminal Act," and "Article 329 of the Criminal Act."

The judgment of the court is no longer maintained as the subject of the judgment was changed by this court's permission.

However, the defendant's assertion of mental disability is still subject to the judgment of this court despite the above reasons for ex officio reversal, and it will be examined below.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it does not seem that the defendant had the ability to discern things or make decisions due to mental problems, such as mental division, etc., at the time of committing the crime, although it is recognized that the defendant was diagnosed by doctor L on April 11, 201 by K Hospital. However, considering the contents of the defendant's statement at the investigative agency, the situation at the time of committing the crime in this case, the method of committing the crime, and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

The judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing, on the grounds that the court below made an ex officio reversal as seen earlier.

Criminal facts

Criminal facts and the summary of evidence recognized by the court.

arrow