logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.09.21 2016재노89
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four years.

Reasons

On July 11, 2014, the Defendant and the requester for reexamination (hereinafter “Defendant”) filed an appeal by the Seoul Central District Court, who was sentenced to six years of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes.

On December 5, 2014, the court reversed the judgment of the court below and sentenced the defendant to a four-year imprisonment (Seoul High Court Decision 2014No. 2093, hereinafter “the judgment subject to a retrial”), and the defendant was standing against this.

On February 26, 2015, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendant's appeal (Supreme Court Decision 2014Do17822) and finally became final and conclusive.

After the Defendant filed a petition for the instant retrial, this Court rendered a decision to commence the retrial on June 9, 2016, and thereafter the decision to commence the retrial became final and conclusive as is, on the grounds that there was no legitimate filing of an appeal within the appeal period.

On August 15, 2013, the defendant did not steals two Kameras and three Kamerasz in the victim D's house, and there is no evidence as to this part of the charges.

Nevertheless, it is unreasonable that the court below found this part of the facts charged guilty.

In other words, the Defendant had 1D MK4 Kameras (hereinafter “the instant Kameras”) and Gameras (hereinafter “the instant Kameras”) as part of the facts charged, but the Defendant actually purchased the instant Kameras and Gameras as part of the Defendant’s hobby as a hobby.

② The 40D Kameras and Maren2 were not found in the Defendant’s residence, etc., other than the instant Kameras and sirens.

③ After four months of the occurrence of the instant case, the Defendant intended to purchase the charging machine to use the instant camera, and was unable to purchase the charging machine, the Defendant’s wife while compensating for and exchanging the instant camera with another camera.

arrow