beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) It is difficult to view that the facts charged in the instant case, which had extensive time to commit the crime and specified the tools and methods of committing the crime. 2) Although there was no erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles that caused the victim to die, the lower court convicting the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case by erroneous determination of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor (two years and six months of imprisonment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. 1) Determination on the grounds of appeal by the defendant 1) The purport of allowing the court to specify the facts charged by specifying the date, time, place, and method of the crime in the facts charged is to limit the scope of the trial against the court and to facilitate the exercise of its defense by specifying the scope of the defense against the defendant. As such, the facts charged is sufficient if the facts constituting the crime are stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from other facts by comprehensively taking into account these elements, and even if the date, place, method, etc. of the crime are not specified in the indictment, it does not go against the purport of the law allowing the specification of the facts charged, in light of the nature of the crime charged, if it is inevitable to indicate the general facts in light of the nature of the crime charged,
(Supreme Court Decision 2008Do2182 Decided December 23, 2010). (b) The facts charged in the instant case is deemed to be under the influence of the Defendant from October 14, 2012 to October 15, 2012, the Defendant 208Do2182, who was the wife of the Defendant, who was under the influence of alcohol at the Defendant’s home located in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Gwangjin-gu, and 201, was under the influence of alcohol, thereby under the influence of 54 years of age. Accordingly, the Defendant 208Do2182, who was under the influence of alcohol, went beyond the victim’s head, faced with the victim’s head at a place where 0.7 cm.