(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.07.06 2017노2765 | 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) 서울고등법원 2018.07.06 2017노2765

살인등

Text

All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles as to the crime of murder (1) of this case: (a) The facts charged as to the crime of murder of this case are as follows: “The victim was killed due to nicotine addiction, etc. by making the nicotine amount consumed in a fluorous manner (in preparatory manner).” Thus, the expression is excessively ambiguous; (b) it is unclear whether the tool used for the murder was dilution of nicotine amount; and (c) it is too broad and broad and broad; and (d) it was identified as the facts charged because the distance between the fluor-type and the fluor-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type-type

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the lower court did not render a judgment dismissing the prosecution but erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

(2) The Defendants were living together in the process of Defendant B’s assistance to the rehabilitation treatment of the AJ, who is his father and wife, and they did not have any relationship with the Defendant, and Defendant A was financially supported by the victim C (hereinafter “victim”), and there is no economic motive for Defendant A to kill the victim.

In addition, since Defendant A received inheritance by understanding the victim's inherited property by using the information service of the community service center, it cannot be deemed that Defendant A has an economic motive for murder solely on the ground that Defendant A arranged the property, such as insurance money in the name of the victim.

Defendant

A is only a marriage report with the consent of the victim. As such, the marriage report between the defendant A and the victim (hereinafter “the marriage report of this case”) does not relate to the death of the victim.

Defendant

A was aware that the custody of Defendant B was related to the electronic tobacco, and the amount of nicotine was not reported by Defendant B, and only the victim was aware of the victim’s request.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2018.7.6.선고 2017노2765 판결

-대법원 2023. 7. 27. 선고 2023도3477 판결

-인천지방법원 2019.06.20 2019고합281

-서울북부지방법원 2018.06.01 2018노26

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2019.09.11 2018고합144