(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노644 | 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) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2017노644

주거침입등

Text

The judgment below

The guilty portion shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and two months.

The judgment below

Part of acquittal.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) did not commit a crime in the lower judgment against the guilty portion.

2) The punishment of the above part (one hundred months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence, the prosecutor 1) can recognize the fact that the defendant committed the same act as the facts charged, which corresponds to the acquittal portion of the judgment below.

2) Of the judgment of the court below, the sentence of conviction is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. In general, in a criminal identification procedure based on the appearance, etc. of the suspect's appearance, etc., where a witness alone is replaced with a suspect or only one photograph of the suspect is presented to the witness to verify whether the suspect is a criminal, the credibility is low due to the degree of human memory and the probability of giving him/her an anthromatic cancer that the suspect is suspected of being a criminal under the limit, inaccurate and detailed circumstances.

However, in addition to the victim’s statement, in cases where there are additional circumstances, such as whether there are other circumstances to suspect the suspect as an offender, it may be assessed differently (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do5381, Aug. 27, 2015). (b) E and F are the same as those of CCTV images, which were shown by police before and after August 10, 2015, and are compatible with the offender.

The defendant's photograph presented by the police before and after August 20, 2015 and the defendant's photograph is deemed to be the criminal.

The defendant, who was investigated on August 24, 2015, directly reported the defendant and stated that he/she is certain.

The police did not show or substitute the image of the CCTV, the photograph of the accused, or the accused who was examined, to E and F alone, and did not show or substitute the images of many persons, including the accused, similar to the appearance of the accused.

(c)

As such, E and F have identified the Defendant as an offender.

참조판례

-대법원 2015. 8. 27. 선고 2015도5381 판결

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.02.16 2015노1859

-창원지방법원 2017.06.28 2017노10

-서울고등법원 2018.05.10 2017노3767 (1)

-춘천지방법원 2018.11.09 2018노810

-전주지방법원 2019.01.25 2018노1478