logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.08.11 2016노525
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The CCTV video recording of the summary of the grounds for appeal shows a long range of pages where the victim and G are authorized, and the defendant returned to his chest to put a rectangular type of goods into the upper pelel, and as a result of the video appraisal, it was confirmed that the above rectangular type of goods is a rectangular type of test color.

Although the defendant's cell phone is a mobile phone with his own examination color, it is difficult to think of it in light of the rule of experience to keep the cell phone on chest, it is reasonable to see it as a victim's examination color.

The court below found that the police officer, who was dispatched upon the report of the victim, confirmed the clothes and bags of the defendant, but did not find any damaged items.

However, it seems that the police officer at the time did not identify the defendant's chest and did not find the damaged goods as a result of checking only the household room.

Since the victim confirmed the last location of the stolen mobile phone from the date of the occurrence of the case, the last location of the mobile phone in the area of the Incheon or the French area was confirmed after the occurrence of the case. This is high credibility due to a statement made by the victim under the knowledge that the defendant's residence is the Seo-gu in Incheon.

Therefore, even though the defendant should have been convicted of larceny, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact that the defendant was acquitted.

2. The lower court: (a) The lower court: (b) memorys that H was in possession of the wallets and mobile phone at the time of the instant store; (c) but, in the event that H was in company with the Defendant, it does not memory whether there was a deficit in his wallets at the time

(2) G, the main business of the instant store, showed that H and the Defendant reported the identification card that was taken from H’s wallets, but it did not seem to be a subsequent situation because he was working for H, and that H was fit between the table and the table to which other foreigners are sitting.

statement;

arrow