logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2014.02.19 2013노256
특수절도
Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) At the time of the instant crime of mistake of facts, Defendant C only has prevented the Defendant, and in collaboration with the Defendant, is a computer body, monitor, keyboard, or horse (hereinafter “computer, etc.”).

The judgment of the court below which recognized that a special larceny was established against the defendant on a different premise without theft is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. 2) The sentence of imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) imposed on the defendant by the court below is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant is too unfortunate and unfair.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court’s judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts: (a) the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in this case in the court of the lower court; (b) there is no special circumstance to suspect the credibility of the confession made in the presence of a defense counsel in the presence of a judge in the presence of a judge (50 pages of the trial record); and (c) the above C stated in the police that the Defendant stolen the computer, etc. along with the Defendant at the time of the instant crime in the court of the first instance (58 pages of the evidence record); and (d) the Defendant stated in the court of the first instance that the Defendant was only the Defendant at the time of the instant crime, and that the Defendant did not have stolen the computer, etc. at the time of the instant crime; (c) however, in light of the relationship between C and the Defendant, and the time when the statement was reversed, it appears that the above C and the Defendant had been reconcted with the Defendant’s statement that was considerably specific and consistent with the circumstances and circumstances at the time of theft.

arrow