beta
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.06.13 2019노146

절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is as follows: (a) the Defendant’s criminal process clearly revealed as CCTV is clearly revealed; (b) from CCTV images, the Defendant appears to be a damaged cosmetic; and (c) the Defendant does not reasonably explain his/her act in CCTV images; (d) so, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts of larceny and by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby acquitted the Defendant.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. On April 30, 2017, from around 12:50 to around 13:10 on the same day, the Defendant stolen the gap in the victim E’s supervision in the first floor of C department stores located in Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu (hereinafter “instant store”) with cosmetics equivalent to KRW 160,000 in other market prices (hereinafter “instant cosmetics”).

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged that the Defendant: (a) laid the instant cosmetics in the shopping shopping mall; (b) removed the theft prevention strings attached to the instant cosmetics from the store to the garbage box inside the store without any reasonable doubt; and (c) laid the cosmetics out of the store without any reasonable doubt, it is difficult to view that the facts charged that the Defendant stolen the cosmetics out of the store were proven to the extent that there was no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

① At the same time, the Defendant consistently returned to the instant store from the investigative agency to the instant court, and tried to calculate that the Defendant had been contained in a dura shopping shopping mall while driving a cosmetic while driving the cosmetic, and thus, did not have to be contained in the wallet, and only did the said products have been stored in the store, and the Defendant did not prevent theft of the cosmetic.