(영문) 창원지방법원 2019.01.23 2018고단2448



The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.


Punishment of the crime

1. On August 4, 2018, the Defendant and B, and C, together with B and C, stolen them by inserting the gap of surveillance in the orchard owned by the victim E in Kimhae-si on August 4, 2018, and putting them in the plastic sealing which was prepared in advance by 35 times the market price of the victim’s possession from the fruit trees in the above orchard.

2. Around July 22:10 on July 29, 2018, the Defendant and B, together with the Defendant, stolen the gap in which surveillance was neglected in the above orchard, by inserting 15 plastic bars, which were prepared in advance, in the market price of the victim’s possession, from the fruit trees in another orchard.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect B or C;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Protocols of seizure, list of seizure, and photographs of seized articles;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on the 112 Incident Handling table;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 53 and 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. Six months of imprisonment to be suspended;

1. According to Article 59(1) of the Criminal Act of the Suspension of Sentence (i.e., significant circumstances before the beginning, considering the favorable circumstances below), the reasons for sentencing are determined as follows: (a) comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, the contents and circumstances of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the commission of the crime, and taking into account

Unfavorable circumstances: Liability for the theft of another person's agricultural crops on two occasions is not less exceptionally applied.

The victim is trying to punish the defendant.

The favorable circumstances: The Defendant recognized each of the crimes of this case, thereby not repeating the same mistake.

Damage is not a significant amount of damage as an agricultural product.

(In addition, the defendant attempted to recover certain damages, but did not go through the refusal of the victim). The defendant has no record of criminal punishment in the Republic of Korea.