beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one million won.
Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one million won shall be the one day.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 2015, the Defendant: (a) acquired a new card lost by the victim C, agricultural cooperative card, and a lotn bus card on which the victim C was lost in the non-permanent area of Busan Metropolitan City Maritime Daegu; and (b) embezzled a lost portion of possession to his/her will without taking necessary measures, such as returning it to the victim; and (c) embezzled a lost portion of possession.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Report of investigation, investigation report (in cases of cards acquired by a suspect, investigation into such cards, and cards acquired by a suspect);
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of subparagraphs 2 through 10 of the seized evidence;
1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act and Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of punishment;
1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order
1. On Nov. 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) obtained a cellular phone number from the market value of a Buddhist victim on the rear seat of a bus in the Seocho-si, Chuncheon-si; and (b) did not take necessary measures, such as returning it to the victim; and (c) embezzled the object that was occupied by his/her intent to use.
2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant merely carried his/her cell phone with his/her own cell phone, and did not arbitrarily bring his/her lost mobile phone and embezzled possession of the lost mobile phone, and denied this part of the facts charged.
B. (1) In a criminal trial, the burden of proving the facts constituting the crime prosecuted is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction is to be based on the evidence with probative value sufficient to cause a judge to have a reasonable doubt that the facts charged are true, so if there is no such evidence, the suspicion of guilt is between the defendant, even if there is no such evidence.
Even if there is no choice but to judge the interests of the defendant.
Supreme Court Order 8 July 2010