beta
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.07.24 2014노2435

절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the freight of this case is owned by the victim company, and even if the charge of this case was acknowledged that the defendant stolen the freight of this case owned by the victim company, the court below acquitted the defendant of the facts charged of this case on a different premise. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts, which affected the conclusion of

2. In the first instance trial, the Prosecutor applied for permission to amend the indictment with the content that the name of the instant crime was changed from “thief” to “Obstruction,” and the applicable provisions of law to “Article 329 of the Criminal Act” to “Article 323 of the Criminal Act,” and the same as the following facts constituting the crime was changed by this court’s permission. As such, the lower judgment was no longer maintained.

3. Accordingly, the court below's decision is reversed ex officio pursuant to Article 364 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is so decided as follows.

Criminal facts

On January 3, 2013, the Defendant purchased D Hyundai 4.5 tons of truck owned by the victim company in KRW 32 million between E and E, a real manager of the victim company C, and received a loan from the Korean Capital Capital Co., Ltd. in the name of the Defendant, and paid the purchase price, and at the time, G provided joint and several surety by the auditor of the victim company G at the time.

Around January 8, 2013, when the Defendant entered into a cargo transport operation entrustment contract and logistics delivery contract with the victim company, and the Defendant was unable to operate the vehicle due to health problems around June 2013, when the Defendant was carrying on the cargo transport services, the Defendant decided that the said truck would be carried on behalf of the victim company, while allowing the Defendant to operate the said truck with another engineer during the break between E and the victim company, and the Defendant transferred the next key to the victim company.