logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2013.09.13 2013노2483
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

As to the crime No. 1-A of the facts stated in the judgment of the court below, the court below determined otherwise, even though the defendant stolen only one million won check and two cash 100,000 won, and did not steals the remainder of the damage.

The imprisonment (six years of imprisonment) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

According to the statement of the victim's investigative agency on the part of the misconception of facts, since the defendant can recognize the fact that he stolen the damaged articles listed in paragraph (1) of the crime No. 1 of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of all the facts charged is just.

The part of the defendant's assertion of unfair sentencing is against his own mistake, and the uneasable growth environment seems to have caused larceny. However, even though there had been a history of having already been sentenced several times due to the same kind of crime, the defendant again committed the crime in this case during the period of repeated offense in light of the number of offenses, the number of times and the amount of damage, etc., which is highly likely to be subject to criticism in light of the defendant's age, family relation, criminal record, relationship, occupation, environment, motive and circumstance of the crime, means and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., it cannot be deemed that the sentence of the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

Therefore, the appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act because the appeal by the defendant is groundless.

However, according to the records, since it is obvious that " December 19, 2012" in the first sentence of Article 1-1-A of the facts constituting an offense in the judgment below is a clerical error in the phrase " December 20, 2012," it shall be corrected as a correction.

arrow