thief, thief and thief

The evidence 15 and 16 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office, which was seized, shall be confiscated in 2017, 7513.

The evidence No. 7513 of the Seoul Central District Prosecutors' Office that was seized shall be returned to the victim C, to the victim's name under subparagraph 8, 9, and 10 of the same evidence, to the victim's name under subparagraph 3 of the evidence No. 1584 of the previous District Prosecutors' Office 2017, to 1,00 won under subparagraph 3 of the evidence No. 1584 of the same evidence No. 2017, to 3 of the Gwangju District Prosecutors' Office 2017, to 50 won under subparagraph 5 of the same evidence No. 2,8,9, 10, 11, and 10 won under subparagraph 3 of the same evidence, to the victim's name, and to 5, the remainder of 500 won under subparagraph 4 of the same evidence No. 5 of the same evidence No. 2017, and to the victim's name, respectively.

The defendant committed a theft of another person's property or received his/her lectures in order to raise a shortage of living expenses that he/she had left home on the ground of infertility, etc.

1. Night-time theft of buildings;

On November 10, 2017, at around 01:00, the Defendant opened a cafeteria operated by the victim C in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and cut off, with a limit of 36,000 won in the market value above the line, “SESONS” tobacco 8 cigarettes and a limit of 13cm in the blade and 24cm in the length.

2. Injury by robbery;

At around 21:00 on November 11, 2017, the Defendant discovered that the elderly victim was working in a mixed restaurant operated by the Victim F (FF) located in Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (FF, 77 years of age), and led the victim to the foregoing method, which was possessed by the above method as above, and led the victim to cut off the amount of money owned by the victim.

The Defendant entered the restaurant, and issued an order to the above restaurant, and the victim got back to the side of the main part of the victim with the above over-mentioned road, and the victim knife knife the above-mentioned part once. The Defendant: (a) the victim knife knife the victim's body knife with the victim's left hand knife; (b) the victim's left chest part of the part above knife knife knife knife had knife the victim's body more than twice; and (c) the victim did not have money while the victim did not have money; and (d) in the process, the victim inflicted an injury on the victim, such as fnife, which is open to the victim's body within the chest mouth where treatment is required.

2018Gohap42

1. Embezzlements of lost possession;

On September 2017, the Defendant: (a) obtained a copy of the victim’s resident registration certificate at H High School 3 and 5th class located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu; and (b) did not follow necessary procedures, such as returning it to the victim; (c) thereby, the Defendant embezzled lost property or any property that lost the victim’s possession.

2. Larceny;

On November 7, 2017, the defendant sent away on November 7, 2017, and then parked cars without correcting the need for food expenses, lodging expenses, etc., and stolen articles in the above vehicle.

A. On November 15, 2017, from around 01:00 to 03:00, the Defendant returned to an apartment parking lot where the name in the vicinity of the Sungsung Women High School located in 663 37, Seo-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, is unknown, and the Defendant opened a six-way door of the vehicle that was not corrected and opened the 10,000 won cultural product right of the victims who are not known of their names in the said vehicle, and 10,000 won in cash, 50 won in cash, 1,000 won in cash, 11,000 won in number, and 90,000 won in number.

B. On November 16, 2017, from around 00:00 to 04:00, the Defendant returned to the e-tax apartment parking lot located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, about KRW 30,00,00, the Defendant opened a 9-type car without correction, and opened a door to the e-type car, and the name of the victims cannot be identified by entering the said car, and held approximately KRW 30,000,000,000,000, in cash, 1,000 won, and number 5,00,000.

C. On November 19, 2017, from around 04:00 to 06:00, the Defendant returned to the 240-ro, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu parking lots, such as Hoburi-si, Magdong-J5 mobile phones J5 mobile phones, Samsung Galle-si, Samsung J3 mobile phones, for which the market price owned by the victim J cannot be known, the Defendant entered the said vehicle and entered the said vehicle, with approximately 60,00 won, such as Hobri-si, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, 240. The Defendant: (a) opened a 15 vehicle that was not corrected; (b) one cellular phone of Samsung J. 5 mobile phone; (c) one mobile phone of the victims whose name is unknown; and (d) one mobile phone of the victims whose name is unknown; (d) one color C. 5,000 won in cash;

D. On November 22, 2017, between 00:30 and 00:50, the Defendant returned to the parking lot for the non-high frequency apartment in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, which was not corrected, and opened a string car door owned by the victim D and entered the said car in cash, with a total of KRW 5,100 won, including 3,500 won per 3,500 won per 1,00 won per 3,50 won per 100 won per 6,100 won per 1,00 won per 1,00 won per 5,50 won per 5,500 won per 5,100 won per 10 won per 5,100 won per 1,00 won per 10 won.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

2017 Gohap1267;

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police protocol of statement against M and N;

1. Response to the request for appraisal;

1. A copy of a medical certificate or medical record;

1. Report on internal investigation (the confirmation of the current status of occurrence), investigation report (the confirmation of the status of a victim against the doctor of the central hospital and the family member of the victim), investigation report (related to the treatment process and statement of the victim), investigation report (the verification of CCTV images around the site), investigation report (the results of analysis of CCTV images around the site), investigation report (the detection of the suspect's products), investigation report (the detection of his/her products), investigation report (the investigation report on the site inquiry), investigation report (the investigation report on the discovery of his/her products), investigation report (the investigation report), investigation report (the investigation report on the discovery of his/her son and Make worn out at the time of committing the crime), investigation report (the discovery of his/her son and Makes and makes), investigation report (the attachment of the victim's N (the victim's children), victim's statement, investigation report (the submission of the victim's opinion in charge of the victim's opinion), investigation

1. Photographs;

"2018, 42

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each police statement to D, J and K;

1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;

1. Investigation report (victim I telephone conversations), investigation report (in relation to investigation into injury by the mobile phone owner from whom the seizure was made, and in relation to the status of IDS5, the seized article 2;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

Article 330 of the Criminal Act, Article 337 of the Criminal Act, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 329 of the Criminal Act (the thief of night building, the point of injury by robbery, the choice of imprisonment), Article 329 of the Criminal Act

1. Mitigation of juvenile offenses;

Articles 2 and 60(2) of the Juvenile Act, Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (the defendant is recognized as being a juvenile in light of his characteristics, since he is recognized as being a juvenile)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Concurrent Crimes Concerning Robbery and Injury with the largest penalty)

1. Illegal punishment;

Articles 2 and 60(1) of the Juvenile Act

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

1. Return to a victim;

Judgment on the defense counsel's assertion under Article 333 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

Although it was true that the defendant led to the thief as stated in the judgment of the 2018 Gohap42 case, there is no supporting evidence against this, the confession of the defendant falls under the case where the confession of the defendant was disadvantageous to the defendant, and it is not admissible as evidence of guilt.

2. Determination

Reinforcement evidence for confession is sufficient if it is sufficient to recognize that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, even though all or some of the facts constituting an offense can be recognized, as well as if it is sufficient to acknowledge that the confession of a defendant is true, not a processed one, as well as indirect evidence or circumstantial evidence. In addition, if confession and corroborative evidence are mutually consistent and it is possible to prove the facts of an offense as a whole as evidence of guilt (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11272, Dec. 23, 2010).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed by the court's lawfully adopted and investigated evidence, namely, ① the defendant acknowledged that all the items entered in the police's list that was arrested and investigated by the police immediately after the last larceny crime of this case was a stolen victim, and made a statement corresponding to this part of the facts charged, and specifically stated the time and place of the crime. The defendant maintained statements to the same effect up to this court, and there is no reason to suspect the credibility of the statement. ② Each police's statement corresponds to the above confession, ② each of the D, J, and K conforms to the above confession, and there is no particular difference or contradiction between the two facts charged, ③ each larceny act of this part of the facts charged is close to time and place, and in particular, each larceny act by the date of the crime of this case can be identified as a series of acts. Accordingly, the victim's statements in this case and D, J and K's statements are hard to admit the credibility and credibility of each of the above facts charged as well as the relevant thief acts, and there is sufficient reason to admit the above evidence of evidence and evidence.

1. Reasons for sentencing: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of three years and six months from June to June 22;

2. The scope of recommendations on the sentencing criteria: Juvenile is not subject to the sentencing criteria.

3. Determination of sentence;

The following circumstances and the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive, means and result of the crime, and all sentencing factors specified in the arguments in the instant case, including the circumstances after the crime, shall be determined as ordered by the sentence.

○○ Unfavorable Circumstances: The crime of robbery in this case was committed by the Defendant on the road of the Victim F by force with knife money and valuables, etc., and was committed by the Defendant to the victim F, and in the process, the Defendant inflicted an injury on the victim F during the commission of the crime. The degree of damage, such as the violation of the applicable law and attitude, the abolition and the simplified damage, etc. of the Victim F, is high, and the Defendant is aware of the fact that the Victim F is aged and is vulnerable to the crime due to physical disability. The Victim F was under severe physical and mental pain due to the above crime, and his life could have been lost. Furthermore, the Defendant was also committed larceny over several occasions, and there is a greater possibility of criticism.

The favorable circumstances for ○: The Defendant is both recognized and against each of the instant crimes. The victim F of the instant crime of injury by robbery in the course of agreement with the Defendant wanting to have a preference against the Defendant, and the degree of damage to each of the other crimes except the instant robbery and injury is relatively minor. The Defendant is a current juvenile of 18 years of age, and has no record of criminal punishment yet.

Judges Park Jong-ro

Judges Park Jae-gu