beta
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.06.23 2016노802

절도등

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) Section 1) The Defendant: (a) purchased and used by the Defendant for the instant electric source housing construction; and (b) stored the PVC pipe, which remains after being used in another construction site (construction in a convalescent hospital located in a ward), at a place less than 10 meters away from the above electric source housing and approximately 10 meters away; (c) although the Defendant brought the said materials around March 2012, there was no fact that the materials owned by the victim were stolen on or around the date indicated in the facts charged.

2) The Defendant of intimidation calls to E around August 2013, 2013. However, there is no fact that the victim’s family members were frighted as they spread bad questions.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination 1 on the assertion of mistake of facts) Section 1 of the Do, which is the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., D, around November 201, entrusted the Defendant with the installation of the water supply system, pipes, etc. of the instant electric power plant; around March 201, the Defendant sent to the Defendant a certificate that the Defendant was prohibited from entering the construction site on the ground of the occurrence of defects; and around that time, the Defendant handed over the construction site at the Defendant India’s site; ② the Defendant appears to have not specifically claimed the right regarding the materials accumulated at the above site after the completion of the construction site; ③ F was determined from the investigative agency to the court of the lower court to the court.

The defendant stated that there is a little difference in the date and time, but it is recognized that he brought about the construction materials accumulated near the site of the electric power resource of this case, and the defendant's change that he stored the construction materials, such as the PVC pipe, remaining after being used in another construction site, together with the above site is persuasive.