점유이탈물횡령
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On January 24, 2020, around 02:19, the Defendant: (a) obtained two and dysary forests equivalent to KRW 50,000 at the victim D’s market price located on the finch B; (b) did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired goods to the victim; (c) did not take necessary procedures.
Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has escaped from the possession of the victim.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement D of the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant as to the defendant's legal statement - Scenes of the scene of the case - CCTV images - photographs of the victim's residence confirmation photographic images - internal investigation report (investigation, etc. into the circumstances of the case and the victim's statement) (after committing the crime - 1 of tracking the suspect's moving path tracking 1, 2 of tracking the suspect's moving route after committing the crime, 2 of tracking the suspect's moving route after committing the crime, and the last confirmed location - Search and investigation, suspect'
1. Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act applicable to criminal facts, Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of punishment (the crime of embezzlement of stolen objects), and Article 360(1) of the Criminal Act of the choice of fine is to bring the Defendant’s property owned by the victim on the new wall as they are. In light of the status of the above damaged goods, if the Defendant paid a little attention to the fact of the above damaged goods, he/she shall be subject to moral and legal criticism in that he/she brought the damaged goods
In addition, since the defendant was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000 as a punishment for larceny in 2003 and in 2016, there is a risk of recidivism.
However, the defendant led to the confession of the crime of this case and reflects it. In the crime of this case, the shopping bags containing one's own goods from the new wall without permission, and contributed to a considerable portion of the victim's negligence. The damaged goods were returned to the victim as they were, and the damage was recovered three times.