logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.05.14 2014고정140
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 200,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 201, 2010, between 11:00 and 13:00, the Defendant stolen a copy of the statement of transaction owned by the victim E, which the female employees of the office keep on his book at the D office located in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Bupyeong-gu, Incheon.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A suspect interrogation protocol of the accused by the prosecution (including E statements);

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of statutes on a copy of transaction statement;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Punishment for the Crime. Article 329 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserts whether the victim's possession or possession can be recognized or not is merely back to the victim's account book, and thus the victim's possession or possession may not be the object of larceny.

The theft refers to the removal of the property possessed by another person against the will of the possessor to his or her own possession or to a third party. Whether a certain property is occupied by another person or not shall be determined by considering the intention of control as a subjective element in addition to the scope of management or the possibility of factual management as an objective element, and ultimately, by considering the form of the property in question and other specific circumstances, from a normative standpoint in light of social norms.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do3801 delivered on November 12, 1999, etc.). According to the evidence revealed above, the transaction statement that the defendant stolen was on the account books of the account operated by the victim, and the victim was on the account books of the account books operated by the victim, and the victim was on the tear or tear, but the above transaction statement did not take such measures.

arrow