beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.10.16 2014고정987

절도

Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is the customer and the victim C.

On April 14, 2014, around 18:28, the Defendant: (a) purchased a gallon 2 mobile phone from the victim who was placed in the front of the Kacter while purchasing two chemical parts within the scope of E where the victim works in Goyang-gu, Goyang-si D; and (b) stolen the victim’s property under the market price.

2. The Defendant asserts that he/she was aware of the fact that he/she brought his/her mobile phone as stated in the facts charged, but he/she was aware of it as his/her own, and that there was no intention of larceny or of unlawful acquisition.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the defendant cited a mobile phone owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant mobile phone damage”), such as the facts charged, and there is a difference between the size, color, and shape of the mobile phone owned by the defendant, and the fact that the victim who became aware of the loss of the mobile phone was called on the mobile phone but was called on the mobile phone, but became aware of the loss of the mobile phone, is recognized as having the mobile phone on another restaurant without receiving the phone or returning it to the victim.

However, the following circumstances revealed in the record: (a) the Defendant purchased flowers in the above E, i.e., the Defendant left the place after the calculation, and cited the instant mobile phone on the Kabter while leaving the place; (b) it is difficult to see that the Defendant used the said mobile phone with the intent to steal the above mobile phone since there was a situation where the person on the above center was in the position of the above center; and (c) the husband of the Defendant found the owner in the restaurant immediately moved from the above E and left the instant mobile phone; and (d) the Defendant did not perform any special action to conceal his identity, such as approving the price by using his food card at the above restaurant; and (e) the size, color, shape, etc. of the instant mobile phone and the mobile phone owned by the Defendant are somewhat different.