logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.05.29 2014노383
유해화학물질관리법위반(환각물질흡입)
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of stopping the instant crime, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol and was in a state of mental disorder or mental disorder.

B. The sentence of imprisonment (one year of imprisonment and confiscation) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the records of mental and physical disorder, even though the defendant was found to have committed the crime of this case while drinking, in light of the circumstances before and after the crime of this case was committed, the circumstances leading to the crime of this case, the defendant's behavior at the time of the crime of this case, etc., it cannot be deemed that the defendant did not have or lacks the ability to discern things due to drinking, and thus, the defendant's mental and physical disorder argument is without merit.

B. Although the defendant's error of unfair sentencing is considered to be against his depth, and the defendant has made efforts to raise an obsive obsive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensive sensivesive sensives through hospital treatment, it is recognized that the defendant has been punished several times for the same kind of crime, and the defendant again committed the crime in this case during the repeated crime period, and other circumstances that are conditions for sentencing indicated in the record, such as the motive and circumstances leading to the crime in this case, the defendant's age, character and behavior, environment, occupation, family relation, etc., the punishment

3. As such, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the ground that it is without merit.

However, Article 57 of the Criminal Act provides that "1......" of the judgment of the court below is clear that the number of days of pre-trial detention should be included in the calculation of the number of days of pre-trial detention, and such deletion is corrected ex officio pursuant to

.

arrow