(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2017.07.06 2016고단577

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2017.07.06 2016고단577

장물보관

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 4, 2015, the Defendant received and stored the stolen from the said lender, even though he was aware of the fact that the vehicle was stolen by providing D as collateral and embezzled by providing D’s loan, at a law firm written office located in Busan, Busan, the Defendant received and stored the stolen from the said lender, even though he was aware of the fact that the vehicle was stolen by providing D’s loan and embezzlement.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of suspect C by the police;

1. Original register of vehicles;

1. Written statements and lease contract documents;

1. The loan contract, etc. (the identification of stolen goods does not require a conclusive recognition, and it is sufficient to have dolusent recognition to the extent of spreading the stolen goods. Whether or not the owner was aware of the stolen goods is bound to be recognized by taking into account the identity of the owner of the stolen goods, the nature of the stolen goods, the transaction cost, and other circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5904, Dec. 9, 2004, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by each of the above evidence, namely, (1) the defendant was written as the owner of the passenger vehicle indicated in the registration ledger of the vehicle that was issued by the defendant acquiring the claims of D (hereinafter “the loan company of this case”) and entered as the owner of the passenger vehicle stated in the judgment (hereinafter “the vehicle of this case”), (2) the defendant received the loan of this case from the lender of this case, not the vehicle of this case, and (3) the vehicle of this case acquired the loan of this case from the defendant 25 million won in consideration of the circumstances.

Since this part of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is rejected, the law is applied 1.

참조판례

-대법원 2004. 12. 9. 선고 2004도5904 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.18 2016노2135

-대전고등법원 (청주) 2014.07.17 2013노196

-수원지방법원 2015.04.08 2014노1370

-대구지방법원 2017.03.17 2016고정2140

-수원지방법원 2016.05.27 2015노637