beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노2762

절도등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the defendant owned the high pressure washing machine of this case, and the defendant entered the warehouse of this case with the consent of the victim, and brought the high pressure washing machine of this case, but the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in matters

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court acknowledged the fact that the Defendant invadedd the victim’s warehouse without the victim’s consent and stolen the instant high pressure washing machine owned by the victim.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake is without merit.

① The victim stated in an investigative agency and the lower court that the instant high voltage washing machine was kept in the victim’s warehouse; the process leading up to the victim’s acquisition of ownership of the instant high voltage washing machine; and the Defendant stated in the currency prior to taking the instant high voltage washing machine in the victim’s warehouse; as well as the consistent and detailed statement, the circumstances leading up to the false entry in the statement do not appear.

② The Defendant sent letters to the police that the Defendant reported the Defendant’s theft of the instant high voltage washing machine to the Defendant. The Defendant her phone calls to the victim, and the Defendant seeks a letter from the victim. The Defendant’s act is difficult to view it as the act of the person holding the ownership of the instant high voltage washing machine.

③ The victim stated that he fastened his own warehouse with locks and fastened the keys to the locks. If the victim consented to taking the high voltage washing machine as alleged by the Defendant, it would not open the iron box bound in the column and enter the warehouse, but rather have the key of the defendant enter the warehouse by leaving the location of the locked.

3. Conclusion.