anti-presidential, passenger transport

Violation of law

Attorney C

Seized evidence 2, 3, and 7 shall be confiscated.

The defendant is a person who has operated a so-called ‘si' business against the late night drivers in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government by making a long-term siren and has operated a so-called ‘si' business.

1. Robbery;

피고인은 위 택시 영업을 시작하기 전 수면유도제인 졸피뎀 성분이 함유된 '졸피드' 정 약 1.5개를 빻아 가루로 만들고, 송곳으로 피로 회복제인 '박카스' 음료 뚜껑에 미세하게 구멍을 뚫어 위 가루를 위 구멍을 통해 투입하여 음료와 섞이게 한 후 위 차량을 이용하는 승객들에게 이를 권하여 마시게 하고 그들이 곧 정신을 잃으면 금품을 빼앗기로 마음먹었다.

A, Victims E (2017, 33)

On December 2, 2016, from around 23:46 to December 02:09, the Defendant: (a) had the victim E (the age of 51) board the said vehicle on the front side of the F building in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) had the victim, who is unaware of the circumstance, completed moving to the H hotel in Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, with the right of “H hotel” prepared in advance, and had the victim lose his mind immediately.

Therefore, the Defendant had the victim unable to resist as above, and 14 K gal jus equivalent to the market value of 850,000 won, 70,000 won in the market value, and 1 fal jus in so far as possible in the market value of 80,000 won in the gal jus, and 80,000 won in the market value.

(b) A victim (2017 high-priced33);

On December 7, 2016, from around 00:10 to around 01:45 of the same day, the Defendant took the victim (33 years 1) on the way before the K hotel located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and moved to the LG Smartphone (33 years 1) in the same way as described in the above paragraph (a) and forced the victim to resist to resist the victim by the same way as described in the above paragraph (a), and 93,000 won in cash from the victim, 18,000 U.S. dollars (5,000 won in Vietnam), and 50,000 won in market value.

(c) Victims M (2017 Gohap33);

From 22:30 on December 15, 2016 to 22:2:30 on the same day, the Defendant got off the victim M&(the age of 42) on the front side of the Seoul Jung-gu's 'N apartment site', and moved the victim into the 'N apartment site in Gangnam-gu Seoul' in the same way as the mentioned in the above paragraph, and took off the victim from the victim to the 's failure to resist the victim in the same way as described in the above paragraph, and took off the victim's Roex hand hand (the average appraisal of 2,00,000 won or more) on the market price (the model name: 116264) and 300,000,000 won at the market price.

(d) Victims (2017Gohap66).

On December 1, 2016, at around 23:00, the Defendant took the 39 years of age on the front side of the P Building in Jung-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and moved the victim to the vicinity of the "Rridge" council located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, between December 2, 2016 and December 02:30, and made the victim unable to resist in the same way as described in the above paragraph (a), and took it by taking the victim’s 1,50,000 won in cash located on the front side of the victim’s cell road in the middle-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City from then to December 2, 2016.

2. Violation of the Passenger Transport Service Act (2017, aggregate33);

No one shall provide any motor vehicle other than a commercial motor vehicle for transport with compensation.

Nevertheless, the Defendant used the said rocketing car, which is a siren vehicle, at each time and place set forth in the above Paragraph 1 above, to receive from E, I, M, and 0 an amount equivalent to KRW 20,000 to KRW 50,000 as freight, respectively, and was born to the destination, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant provided a commercial motor vehicle for commercial transport four times.

3. Violation of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, etc. (referring to 2017 high-priced3, 2017 high-priced 666);

The defendant is not a person handling narcotics.

Nevertheless, the Defendant used the “strokes containing psychotropic drugs” by making four times at each time, at each place, as described in the foregoing Paragraph 1, by making it clear to E, I, M, and this.

Summary of Evidence

[2017Gohap3]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and I;

1. Protocol of examination of witnesses of M in this Court;

1. Partial statement of each prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant against the defendant;

1. Each police statement of E, M, and S;

1. Each written statement of E, I, and M;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. A summary appraisal report;

1. Currency detailed statements, personal financial transactions (entrys), comprehensive vehicle detailed statements, vehicle rental contract records, driver's license registration register (including administrative fines), suspect photographs, vehicle operation records, vehicle operation records, photographs, GPS operations records, photographs, photographs, purchase account books, photographs, stroke medicine information;

1. A photograph, investigation report (verification of vehicle operation record data at the time of the first crime), internal investigation report (verification of vehicle operation record data at the time of the second crime), and CCTV-TV image by capturing a photograph, a photograph of theCC-TV image by cutting off (CC-TV image verification) and by cutting off (CC-TV image for the purpose of crime) and by cutting off (CC-TV image for the purpose of crime), a photograph, a report on internal investigation (at the time of the second crime), a report on internal investigation (at the time of the second crime, the confirmation of vehicle operation record data), and a photograph of theCC-TV image by cutting out, a photograph, a photograph of the tunnel No. 1 in Namsan, a report on internal investigation (at the time of the second crime, the confirmation of the CCTV-TV image), and a report on internal investigation (at the time of the third crime, the confirmation of vehicle operation record data), and a photograph, a report on internal investigation (at the victim's currency);

[2017Gohap3]

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness 0;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement made by the police about 0;

1. A narcotics appraisal statement;

1. A vehicle rental contract;

1. Investigative report (the identity of the accused vehicle and that of the injured party's statement) and two copies of the GPS details of D vehicles, the line between the injured party's statement and the seat of the accused, the investigation report (the face of the accused who is memoryd by the injured party), the investigation report (the comparison between the dead-end drugs used after the injured party's damage and the stroke ingredients) and prescription, reply to the request for cooperation in the investigation (the request for the analysis of medicines), and the investigation report (the hearing of the injured party's 0 wired statement);

Application of Statutes

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

Article 33 of the Criminal Act, Article 90 Subparag. 8, Article 81(1) of the Passenger Transport Service Act (the provision of commercial transport by private cars, comprehensive provision of private cars), Articles 61(1)5, 4(1)1, and 2 subparag. 3 (d) of the Act on the Control of Narcotics, Etc. (the use of psychotropic drugs and the choice of imprisonment)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

The former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (an aggravated punishment for concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed in the crime of robbery against a victim with the largest punishment)

1. Confiscation;

Article 48 (1) 1 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the argument of the defendant and defense counsel

1. Summary of the defendant's defense counsel's assertion

A. Although the Defendant was to receive KRW 20,000 to KRW 50,000 as freight from the victim E, I, and M respectively, and operated 'Nasi-si' by using a siren vehicle, there is no fact that the victims have taken the psychotropic drug guidance system, and there is no fact that the victims have taken money and valuables against the victims who have lost their mind. In particular, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view the victim 0 as the passengers using the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Under the facts charged of this case, the victims’ statements are specified on the basis of the victims’ statements, and it is difficult to believe that there is no consistency in the victims’ statements and there is no evidence supporting the statements.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the victim used the Defendant’s vehicle on December 1, 2016 at around 22:30

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that could be inferred therefrom, the Defendant, while running a Dorasi-si cab business, was paid KRW 30,000 on December 1, 2016 at the front of the Seoul Jung-gu P Building, and 0 of the victim, was on board the said vehicle at the rate of KRW 32:30 on December 1, 2016, and it was recognized that the said victim was on board the said vehicle, and the said victim was on board the said vehicle at the vicinity of the Dona Association located in Q Q in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion that it is difficult to deem the victim as a passenger using the Defendant’s vehicle is rejected.

1) 피해자 이은 수사기관 및 이 법정에서 "2016. 12. 1. 저녁에 을지로입구역 부근에서 친구들과 술을 마시다가 22:30경 술자리에서 나와 서울 중구 P빌딩' 앞 길에서 호객행위를 하는 흰색 나라시 택시를 타게 되었다. 나라시 택시의 운전기사와 서울 광진구 Q에 있는 'R교회' 부근까지 3만 원 정도에 가기로 흥정을 하고 뒷자리에 앉아 이동하던 중 운전기사가 주는 음료수를 마시고 기억을 잃었고, 깨어보니 집이었는데, 휴대폰과 손목시계, 지갑에 있던 현금 등이 없어진 상태였다. 통신사의 휴대폰 찾기 서비스로 확인해 보니 천호대교를 넘어간 이후에 휴대전화가 꺼진 내역이 확인되었다. 을지로 부근에서 나라시 택시를 자주 이용하여 왔는데, 보통 나라시 택시는 카니발과 같은 대형 차량이 많으나 그날 이용한 나라시 택시는 소나타로 추정되는 흰색 승용차였고, 대형은 아니고 소나타급의 중형 승용차였다"라고 진술하였다. 그리고 피해자 은 자신이 위 일시에 이용한 나라시 택시의 운전기사는 TV 프로그램 'T'에서 병장으로 나온 탤런트 U을 닮았다고 진술하였는데, 실제로 피고인과 탤런트 U은 인상이 비슷하다.

In addition, the victim 0 stated that the investigative agency reported the photograph of the defendant, and that the defendant is suitable for the driver of the taxi at the time of the country. In this court, the victim stated that the defendant is not accurate, but he is also suitable for the driver of the taxi at the time of the country in which he knows himself.

2) As a result of checking the details of the GPS stored in the said vehicle, the Defendant’s color of the D Lasta car used for a national taxi business is white in conformity with the victim’s statement. On December 1, 2016, at around 22:30, 2016, the said vehicle was traveling around 13 meters in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, the area where the P Building was located in the P Building, moving to the vicinity of 5:02, around 23:02, and around 00:12, around December 20, 2016, the Defendant was found to have stopped at the vicinity of 24 meters in Seoul, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the area where the victim was located.

3) As such, taking into account the following factors: (a) the date and time of the damage suffered by the victim 0 coincides accurately with the relevant time moving route of the vehicle used for the taxi business in a country; (b) the color and color of the vehicle used by the victim 0 memorys with the vehicle used by the defendant; and (c) the increased number of drivers stated by the victim 0 are consistent with the defendant; and (d) the victim 0 is categorized as a taxi driver at the time of the country where the defendant was on the day of the case; and (e) the fact that the defendant was on board the vehicle operated by the defendant at the place specified in paragraph (d) of Article 1 of the victim 0; and

B. Determination as to whether the Defendant took money and valuables after taking the psychotropic drug guidance to the victims after taking the psychotropic drug;

이 법원이 적법하게 채택하여 조사한 증거에 의하여 인정되는 아래와 같은 사실관계와 그로부터 추론할 수 있는 사정을 종합하여 보면, 피고인은 판시 제1항 기재와 같이 향정신성의약품인 졸피뎀 성분이 함유된 '졸피드' 정 약 1.5개를 빻아 가루로 만들고, 송곳으로 피로 회복제인 '박카스' 음료 뚜껑에 미세하게 구멍을 뚫어 위 가루를 위 구멍을 통해 투입하여 음료와 섞이게 한 후, 피고인이 운행하는 D 쏘나타 승용차에 탑승한 피해자들에게 이를 권하여 마시게 하고 그들이 곧 정신을 잃으면 금품을 빼앗은 사실이 인정된다. 따라서 피고인과 변호인의 이 부분 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

1) 피해자들은 서로 안면이 없고, 관련도 없는 사람들이다. 그런데 피해자들은 수사기관과 이 법정에서, "① 판시 제1항 기재 각 일시에 피고인이 운행하는 D 쏘나타 승용차에 탑승한 후, 피고인이 권하는 피로회복제(박카스) 내지는 음료수를 마셨고, ② 음료수를 마신 후 갑자기 정신을 잃었으며, ③ 정신을 차리고 나니 판시 제1항 기재 각 금품이 없어진 것을 알게 되었고, 그 사이에 있었던 일들은 제대로 기억이 나지 않는다. ④ 사건 당일 술을 마시긴 하였지만 정신을 잃을 정도로 취한 것은 아니었고, 평소에 술을 마시고 필름이 끊어지거나 정신을 잃은 적이 없으며, 당시의 느낌이 술에 취한 것과는 상당히 차이가 있었다"고 하여, 사건 당일 입은 피해 상황의 주요 내용에 대하여 거의 동일한 취지로 진술하였다. 그리고 피해자들이 잃어버린 금품 중에는 목걸이, 손목시계, 넥타이, 지갑 속 현금 등과 같이 술에 취하여 택시에 놓고 내리거나 실수로 분실하기는 어려운 물건들이 다수 포함되어 있다. 피해자들이 진술한 사건 당일의 정황을 보면, 피해자들은 피고인이 권한 음료수를 마신 후 갑작스럽게 정신을 잃고 상당한 시간 동안의 기억을 전혀 하지 못하고 있는 등 통상적으로 술에 취하여 잠에 든 경우와는 전혀 다른 모습이 공통하여 나타나고 있다. 특히 피해자 M의 경우, 피고인은 위 피해자를 태우고 목적지인 청담동 쪽으로 가던 중 이유는 알 수 없으나 다시 방향을 돌려 이태원으로 가 위 피해자를 내려줬고, 위 피해자는 이태원에서 다른 택시를 타고 집으로 돌아갔는데, 당시 이태원에서 위 피해자를 태워주었던 택시기사는 위 피해자가 멀쩡하게 정상적으로 행동한 것으로 기억하고 있으나 정작 위 피해자는 이태원으로 돌아가 다른 택시를 탄 사실 자체를 전혀 기억하지 못하고 있다.

2) Examining the details of GPS used by the Defendant for domestic business at the time of 20: 1: From 0,000 to 20, the Defendant stopped 1:3 hours around 20,000 to 1:0,000, around 20,000 to 3:0,000 : 1:3:0,000 to 2:0,000,000 : 1:3:0,000,000 to 1:0,000,000,000,000,000: 2:3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 2:0,000,000

3) At the time of search and seizure of the Defendant’s residence, she was found to be 6 stalked through 3 lids. However, 3 lids in custody of the Defendant were stalked by lids, sealed by lids, and found lids without opening. As a result of the appraisal of the ingredients of the above balk’s three diseases, she was found to have salkhd by salk-types. The Defendant, in relation to the above 3 malk’s above lids, “after salkdds were made by salk and then salk-types were salked to be salked, and salked to be salked by salk-type and salked to be salked to be salked to be salked to be salked to be salked by using salks.

4) As a result of the appraisal by the National Institute of Scientific Investigation on the victim 0’s hair, the stroke-m was detected, and the stroke-m does not include the stroke-mm in the drugs prescribed or purchased at the pharmacy after the instant case by the victim 0.

5) On December 17, 2016, the Defendant visited Y, “Y” in Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and sold Roex S, who is an operator of the prevention room, with 200,000 won received and sold Roex handman. However, the Defendant appears to have the same model as the lost roex handman in the course of using the vehicle operated by the Defendant by the victim M. Furthermore, according to the GPS details of the vehicle operated by the Defendant, the Defendant appears to have visited laex on several occasions around December 2016, and S purchased money and valuables from the Defendant.

6) As can be seen, ① from the Defendant’s house, it appears that it appears that the Defendant would have been manufactured at the victim’s will to drink, not for personal drinking, but for other persons; ② According to the victims’ consistent statement, the victims appears to have lost their mind due to the scam method included in the Defendant’s right, and there are many things difficult for the victims to lose their mind due to the scam method; ③ the Defendant appears to have been unable to understand that the vehicle would stop for a considerable period of time at a location without any reason to stop until scams while moving the victims; ④ in some cases, it appears that the Defendant could stop the vehicle at an appropriate place for the victims’ awareness; ④ in addition to the fact that the Defendant actually discovered scams from scambling in the scambling component; ⑤ in addition to the circumstance that the Defendant had sold the goods at the time and at the scambling method, it appears that the Defendant could not be able to have discovered the goods at the scam of the Defendant’s house.

7) On this point, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that ① the stroke discovered in the defendant's dwelling was purchased by prescriptions for the defendant's clothes, and that this part of the facts charged cannot be viewed as proved solely on the circumstance that the defendant was a stroke, unless the defendant was found in the victim E, I, and M by stroke, and that the defendant was a stroke, and ② the victims were making a statement that is not accurately memory or contradictory in the situation at the time. In light of the fact that the victims were under the influence of alcohol in very rough, and the victims were under the influence of alcohol in the defendant's vehicle due to stroke, and that the stroke, with the ingredients of stroke, do not lose the spirit.

However, as seen earlier, in full view of the fact-finding that Defendant’s house did not simply find a scam, but rather found to have been 3 scam scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scams scamscams scamscams scamscams scamscams scams, but the victim E, I, and M did not detect scamscams scamscams scams at the time of the instant case, but the Defendant and the defense counsel did not find scamscams scamscams where the victim was found to have been scamscams scamscamscams scamscams.

C. Determination on damaged goods

In full view of the following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances that can be inferred from the above facts, i.e., ① the victims have sufficiently credibility the victims’ statements on the contents of the damaged goods, and the Defendant has taken the money and valuables as stated in paragraph (1) from the victims, and the Defendant and the defense counsel have been compelled to accept this part of the claim. This part of the claim is also accepted, considering the following facts: (a) the victims had been present in this court and stated in the investigative agency the details of the damaged goods in detail after taking an oath; (b) the victims have never been present at the risk of being punished for perjury; (c) there is no reason to state the details of the damaged goods until the victims have made a false statement on the damaged goods at the risk of being punished for perjury; and (d) the victims have been sold as stolen goods; and (e) the victims have sufficiently credibility the victims’ statements on the contents of the damaged goods; and (e) the Defendant and the defense counsel have taken the part of the claim.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of applicable sentences: Imprisonment for not less than three years nor more than 45 years;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

(a) Basic crimes and concurrent crimes: Each robbery;

[Determination of Type 1] General Criteria for Robbery

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendation] Basic Field, 2 years to 4 years of imprisonment

(b) Results according to the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for a period of two years to seven years;

(c) Scope of modified recommendation: Imprisonment for three to seven years (the lowest limit of the sentencing criteria shall apply only to the crimes of violating the Passenger Transport Service Act, since the sentencing criteria are concurrent crimes with those for which no sentencing criteria are set, but compliance with the statutory minimum limit of the applicable sentencing standards);

3. Determination of sentence;

[Unfavorable circumstances] The Defendant, while running a Mana-si business by using sirens, took money and valuables against the victims who have lost their mind after eating psychotropic drugs, while taking advantage of the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, doing harm to many and unspecified persons and taking money and valuables do not constitute a serious criminal act that may cause extreme anxiety for those who live in peace. The victims were on the si in order to return to the Ya-si at the winter and wintering time, and were on the brea-si to lose their mind, and did not go beyond the shock, and did not yet go against the Defendant’s strict punishment. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not make any effort to recover the damage, and even if it was difficult to do so, it does not seem to be contrary to his or her level of punishment, such as his or her e.g., devotion.

[Ligue circumstances] The defendant does not have the same or similar criminal records.

In addition, the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of each of the crimes of this case, circumstances after the crime, etc., and all of the sentencing factors specified in the records and arguments shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account.

Judges Kim Gin-han

Support for judges' organization

2) Although the facts charged in the instant case are indicated as “KONEX,” according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is only recognized that the victim M was demoted to the Defendant at the market price of 300,000 won, and there is no evidence to verify that the brand of KON is accurately EON, and thus, the brand name of KONEX is not stated.