(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.09.03 2015노2356



The defendant's appeal is dismissed.


1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When the Defendant by mistake of facts brought about the instant vehicle, there was a few number of bags and document bags on the instant vehicle, and there was no snish, snish, stable, stable, mountain snicking, cash 650,00,000 won, the lower court recognized that the Defendant committed a theft by snicking the facts, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (5 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, that the defendant did not repay the obligation to C, and that the defendant entrusted C with the instant vehicle due to the failure of the defendant to pay the obligation to C, and that C entered the said vehicle, the F had his father F operated the instant vehicle, and that F had operated his own goods, such as cutting to the instant vehicle, and that at the time the defendant brought the instant vehicle into the instant vehicle, F carried out the instant vehicle the sales right documents, the Oracle, Oragle, Gain Scroscin, grascin, mountain, and cash 650,00 won on the instant vehicle at the time of the defendant brought the instant vehicle, and that the defendant was also recognized to have carried the instant vehicle with the sales right documents and writing attached to the instant vehicle. Thus, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. In full view of various circumstances, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable and unreasonable, taking account of the following: (a) the Defendant reversed the statement from the investigative agency to the instant court; (b) the denial of theft during the instant crime; and (c) the victims want to punish the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant’s age, character and conduct; and (e) the motive

3. Thus, the defendant's appeal is without merit.