(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.08 2017노2634

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.08 2017노2634

현주건조물방화예비등

Text

All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant with mental disorder was in a state of mental disorder arising from the principal action at the time of each of the instant crimes.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. The court below found the defendant guilty of the damage of property according to the F's statement and on-site photograph, etc. which observed the situation at the time of misunderstanding the facts, but the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the Defendant’s mental disorder argument, although the Defendant appears to have served alcohol at the time of each of the instant crimes, in light of the background leading up to the commission of the crime, the Defendant’s movement at the time of the commission of the crime, the means and method of the crime, the circumstances after the commission of the crime, etc., each of the instant crimes was in a state where the Defendant had no or weak ability to discern things or make decisions

It does not seem that it does not appear.

Therefore, the defendant's mental disorder is without merit.

B. 1) The summary of this part of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant collected two tables and water purifiers owned by the victim D during the same process as stated in the facts charged in the 2017 Highest 5106 case as indicated in the lower judgment; and (b) destroyed and damaged the market price’s aesthetic repair cost.

2) The lower court determined as follows: (a) according to the photographs of the scene at the time, only two tables and one water tank can not be confirmed by being destroyed or damaged or by any other means; and (b) as a direct victim of each of the above criminal facts, D’s “scaming the tables” shall be examined.

There was no damage to the tables or water purifiers at the time.

유사 판례

-대전고등법원 2016.05.02 2016노87

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.01 2017노38

-대전고등법원 2016.08.26 2016노114

-서울남부지방법원 2018.05.15 2017노576

-대전고등법원 2016.07.15 2016노137