Reference domicile

Defendant who converted 50,000 won into one day when the above fine has not been paid;

shall be confined in a workhouse.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

On February 12, 2013, around 16:50 on February 16, 2013, the Defendant: (a) discovered and stolen a mobile phone in a post office located within the Chungcheongbuk-gun, 000,000; and (b) discovered and stolen a mobile phone in an amount equivalent to 1.3 million won in the market value on the table.

Summary of Evidence

(Omission)

Application of Statutes

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

Article 329 of the Criminal Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Determination as to the assertion that there was no intention of unlawful acquisition

A. The assertion

The defendant mispercing the victim's cell phone in the post office table, and asked the victim's cell phone in this note to see whether the victim's cell phone was the principal of the mobile phone, and the victim's cell phone was not the principal of the mobile phone, and then she asked the victim in this place to see whether the victim's cell phone was the principal of the mobile phone. While the arbitr brought the cell phone to the box, the cell phone was stored in the plastic box and the cell phone was attached to the plastic box, and there was no intention of illegal acquisition.

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the evidence of the court below, the victim: (a) laid a cell phone at the post office table; (b) sent the post office and sent the cell phone to the post office; and (c) returned to the post office within five minutes thereafter; and (d) did not request the victim to verify CCTV to the post office employees; (b) did not receive the victim's cell phone until then opened the cell phone; and (c) on the CCTV installed at the above post office, the victim was recorded on a cell phone at around 16:53 on the same day, and then sent the mail at the opening; (d) the defendant sent a registered post at around 16:57 on the day; and (e) the defendant sent the cell phone at around 16:57 on February 28, 2013; and (e) the defendant was summoned to the police station and sent the cell phone at around 20 minutes thereafter; and (e) the victim's cell phone cover at the time of the investigation; and (e) the victim's cell phone cover at the time of the investigation.

C. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the above recognition are as follows: ① the Defendant’s cell phone and the victim’s cell phone are likely to be mistakenly different; ② the Defendant stated that the cell phone was opened and the main phone was found at the time, but the CCTV was not recorded on the CCTV, ③ if the Defendant thought that he was to find the main phone of the mobile phone, it would be more easy for the Defendant to have lost the cell phone or left it to the post office staff, but it would be difficult to easily understand that he was put in the plastic bag to bring it to the box, and ④ the Defendant did not receive it, ⑤ the Defendant brought it to the above mobile phone, and the Defendant did not have been summoned to the police box, and the Defendant was summoned to the extent that he did not have been summoned.

2. Determination as to the assertion that possession is omitted

A. Legal doctrine

Theft is established by excluding possession against the will of the owner or possessor of another person, and moving to his or her own possession or a third party. Thus, the Criminal Act’s crime of larceny is established in a case where a person actually controls an object and is in a place where the actual control over the possessor’s death is over, and possession is maintained in view of social norms. Meanwhile, the object of larceny is the object of the crime of larceny. Meanwhile, a property that requires the possession of another person to be constituted, and is not yet deemed to have been discharged from the possession of another person is not an object of possession, but a property that has been erroneously or lost is not an object of possession if the possessor is in a state of recovery or a new possession is commenced.

B. Determination

However, the fact that the victim discovered that there was no mobile phone before five minutes passed since he got out of the post office, and returned to the post office and found a mobile phone. As seen earlier, even if the victim knew that he had set up a mobile phone at the post office and returned to the post office, it seems that he could sufficiently find the aforementioned mobile phone if he did not actually bring about it. Thus, it is difficult to view that the victim's possession of the aforementioned mobile phone at the time of committing the crime was completely lost. Accordingly, the defense counsel's assertion on the object that the possession was denied is rejected.

Reasons for sentencing

The Defendant had been sentenced to six times or more punishment for larceny, and even though the crime was committed in the past while being tried for the same kind of crime, it was not very good, the Defendant received the court’s prior action for the reason that the Defendant was in a state of weak ability to suppress the impulse of larceny due to anti-social disorder.

Since the defendant still denies the crime by repeating a crime without violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change and denies the crime until this court, it is reasonable to impose severe punishment. However, considering the fact that damaged goods are returned and the victim does not want the punishment of the defendant, it is impossible for the defendant to raise the amount of fine as provided in the summary order under the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous change, the punishment shall be determined like the order.