(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.05.30 2016고정1671

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.05.30 2016고정1671

절도

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2016, around 00:41, the Defendant: (a) extracted, in his hand, a mobile storage device (USB) in which the original files of an advertisement in the market price are stored on the advertisement monitor installed by the victim D (28,n).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Written statements of D;

1. CCTV video CDs;

1. Each investigation report (CCTV and witness investigation, suspect tracking investigation, specific suspect, CCTV analysis, and attachment of CCTV images) / (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that although the defendant and his defense counsel have danced on the upper part of the advertising monitoring to adjust the barium too much set, they did not bring about the USB installed in the advertising monitoring. However, according to the above evidence, if the defendant and the defense counsel perform dancing in the upper part of the advertising monitoring in order to reduce the negative quantity of the advertising monitoring as asserted by the defendant, the following circumstances acknowledged according to the above evidence were included in the advertising monitoring until the defendant was on board the elevator:

In light of the facts that according to CCTV video, the defendant was clearly marked to shot in the upper part of the advertising monitor, and it appears that the defendant could sufficiently extract the USB, which is included in the public announcement monitor in the defendant's physical condition with the left hand, and that the defendant did not have any other person than the defendant since the time when the defendant was on the elato test, while he was on the patrol of the electric operator E from the time when he was on the elato test, until the time when he was deprived of the el rebates, and that E did not have any other person than the defendant, considering the fact that the person who reported the crime of this case was not likely to bring the USB in light of his behavior.

As it cannot be seen, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion is not accepted since the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently recognized.

Application of Statutes

1. Criminal facts;

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2021.01.21 2020노398

-부산지방법원 2021.02.10 2020고단3461

-서울남부지방법원 2017.08.25 2016고단6324

-서울남부지방법원 2016.06.09 2015고정402

-수원지방법원 2016.01.14 2015고정3076