(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.01.16 2013노1739 | 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 2014.01.16 2013노1739

폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(집단ㆍ흉기등상해)

Text

1. The judgment below is reversed.

2. The defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for ten months;

3. The sentence against Defendant I shall be imposed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the respective punishment of the court below (the imprisonment of 10 months for the defendant A, and the fine of 1.5 million won for the defendant I) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A ex officio, Defendant A committed an act of assault against several victims in the camping room, which is a dangerous object, and Defendant A committed an injury. In this case, each victim committed several offenses of violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (a collective, deadly weapons, etc.) and these crimes should be deemed to have a substantive concurrent offense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do527, May 26, 1987). However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the number of crimes, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the part against Defendant A among the judgment below is reversed.

B. We examine the judgment on Defendant I’s appeal. The systematic insurance fraud, such as the crime of this case, is ultimately subject to damage to a decent insured, and thus its possibility of criticism is high, the Defendant’s awareness of the occurrence of the crime of this case and reflects the Defendant’s mistake in depth, there is no record of the crime, and there is no risk of recidivism, and the risk of repeating the crime of this case is likely to occur. The degree of participation in the crime of this case was also minor, there is no benefit acquired by the Defendant by himself by the crime of this case, and the Defendant appears to have made efforts to recover damage, such as returning a considerable amount of the insurance money deposited under the name of the Defendant to the victim company. In full view of all other circumstances, the Defendant’s age, character, intelligence and environment, motive, circumstance, means, method and consequence of the crime of this case, circumstances before and after the crime, and criminal record, etc., the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is justified, and therefore, is justified.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-폭력행위 등 처벌에 관한 법률

참조판례

-대법원 1987. 5. 26. 선고 87도527 판결

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2013.12.20 2013노1837

-창원지방법원 2013.10.25 2013노1060

-창원지방법원 2013.11.29 2013노1423

-창원지방법원 2014.02.06 2013노1739 (3)

-창원지방법원 2013.05.24 2013노356