beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.02.08 2016노8442

특수절도

Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s sentence of the lower court (eight months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) was aware of the fact that Defendant B paid the purchase price and brought about the removal of the purchased goods. Defendant B was not a theft of electric wires owned by the victim in collaboration with Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment) which is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the lower court’s determination as to Defendant B’s assertion of mistake, namely, ① Defendant A was not at the investigative agency and the lower court’s court, but at the time of “the first instance court’s attempt to steals electric wires from the beginning.” This is the same as Defendant A was connected with electric wires and hummatics, as it appears that the removal work is conducted.

In this case, the cable connected to the outside of the factory will be brought up.

Defendant

B Whether “if any matter is later, it will not be the subject of more costs.”

“At the end of the horse,” without think of the match, the cable sets up well as the cable.

The former statement was made to the effect that Defendant B would divide the profits from selling electric wires with Defendant B. The above statement was specifically and alternatively consistent, the statement was given to accept his criminal punishment, and its credibility is high, the stolen electric cable could have easily known to the general public that it was installed outside the factory, such as the electric wires installed outside the factory, such as the roof of the factory, not the electric wires attached to the machinery subject to removal. Defendant B also explained the scope of removal work from Defendant B, a broker for the middle of the removal site, and the two factory buildings at the entrance below the factory.