beta
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.09.15 2016고단2506

절도

Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, who was the representative director E in the instant facts charged, received a subcontract for the construction work from G in connection with the construction of the instant F building in the instant case, and did not receive the construction cost, and from around wintering in 2011, did not at all pay for the construction cost while exercising the right of retention on the said F building. As such, the Defendant was able to steals TV in the instant building.

On June 2012, the Defendant: (a) had two TV sets of 1,749,545 won in total and 1,370,000 won in total in the market price of the injured party and 55 Television owned by the Korean Mara Society, which was installed in that place; and (b) had two TV sets of 40,000 won in total.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

2. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged through the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence alone presented by the prosecutor was proved to the extent that the instant facts charged are beyond a reasonable doubt.

It is insufficient to view it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

A. As to the statement of H, the investigative agency and this court stated to the effect that “H made a countermeasure meeting by creditors of G in the office of the first floor of the F Building F in June 2012, 201,” and that “H, after completing the meeting, after loading three TVs on hand, the Defendant, on hand, carried three TVs in front of the entrance of the F Building, and carrying on it on the Defendant’s RV car (RV QM5), it is difficult to believe the above statement of H as it is for the following reasons.

1) The statement written by H on July 29, 2016, prior to the foregoing statement was written by H, stating that “the Defendant was removed from the 55th class, 46, 32 LE panel, etc. established on the second floor of F building on December 2010.”

As such, H reversed the first statement on the time when the Defendant stolen TV.

2) H is the Defendant at the 1st floor office in the police investigation process, where I et al. is located.