logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.11 2016고단9199
절도
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 31, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for and on January 21, 2017, and the judgment became final and conclusive on January 21, 2017. On August 7, 2016, the Defendant cut off the crepits in front of the D hotel located in D hotel C when the victim E performed alcohol on August 7, 2016, which included a light-line of 100,000 won at other market prices.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness E;

1. Results of CCTV images verification by this court;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused by the prosecution;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Reporting on occurrence of a disaster;

1. E statements;

1. Protocols of seizure;

1. A seizure list;

1. Reporting on the results of investigation and CCTV-cap photographs outputs (Evidence Nos. 12,13);

1. Before judgment: Application of the text of the judgment of 2016 Gohap 1148 and the details of confirmation under the Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. The latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Procedure Act: Provided, That the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 39(1) of the same Act was made on August 21, 2016, that the Defendant was not able to have a mash right, which was far away from the events located in F in the Gullet prior to the galle of luminous at around 10:30 on August 21, 2016.

It shows the facts charged.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly examined by this Court, it is recognized that the defendant stolen the wall, which the victim suffered from the damage, in light of the fact that the victim reported the damage immediately after the crime, and the defendant possessed the above horse, is not consistent with the explanatory name on the grounds that the defendant got back to the place where the victim was the victim's own, and that the victim took up the victim's right.

(1) On August 6, 2016, the injured party has won a prize of at least 110,000 won at the last horse, and he/she shall wear the boom, and then he/she shall wear the boom.

arrow