beta
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.06.15 2017고단567

상습절도

Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for two years, and Defendant B shall be punished by imprisonment for six months, respectively.

However, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive, Defendant.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 7, 1986, Defendant A was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for a short term of 6 months, maximum of 8 months, fine of 50,000 won for larceny at the same court on September 12, 1989, three years for a crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes at the Gwangju High Court on August 27, 1993, and two years for suspension of execution for the same crime in the Jeonju District Court’s military mountain support on October 29, 207.

On January 15, 2016, the Defendant cut off the Defendant’s use of OW222(s) electric wires 140m and WO22(s) electric wires 140m and total market value of 334,040 won in advance, which are owned by the Defendant, of the Victim’s Republic of Korea’s Electric Power Corporation, installed at Hasan-si D, Hasan-si, and loaded the Defendant’s vehicle in EAKadidi from around 15, 2017 to around 03:00 on March 15, 2017 by using the same method as indicated in the list of crimes in the attached Table 32 times in total as indicated in the list of crimes in the victim’s Republic of Korea’s electric power Corporation branch, father branch, ancient branch, Dok Kim 10,460m, total market value of 12,85,80 won.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen the victims' property.

2. Defendant B is a person who runs water-related business in the name of “G” in the following cities:

From January 2016, the Defendant purchased electric wires owned by the victim Korea Electric Power Corporation Iksan Branch, etc., which he stolen from the above after they had been stolen from the above world from the above world.

In such cases, the defendant, who is engaged in the sale of used goods, has a duty of care to confirm whether the goods are stolen by taking into account well the details of the acquisition of electric wires, the motive for the sale, the demand for the price suitable for the transaction price, etc.

Nevertheless, the defendant neglected the above care and neglected to make a judgment on the stolen water, and the defendant's negligence from around that time to March 10, 2017.