logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2020.02.11 2019고정325
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On May 2019, the Defendant stolen approximately 880,000 won of the market price ( approximately 1.5m, about 2m2m of vertical length) at the end of the residence of the victim C(44 years of age) located in Gumi-si B, Gumi-si, Gumi-si (hereinafter “Sami-si”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s statement;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted to the effect that the above damaged product was not owned by the victim without the victim's intention of theft on the pents, which are the above damaged product. According to the records, the above pents, which are the damaged part of the victim's back pents (Evidence No. 11, 12 pages), was loaded in the victim's back pents (Evidence No. 11, 12 pages), and the above pents were the same material as the pents installed in the adjacent place of the victim's house (Evidence No. 13, 30 pages of evidence records) and the facts (Evidence No. 13, 30 pages of evidence records), which are the same material as the pents installed in the adjacent place of the victim's house (Evidence No. 13, 30 pages of evidence records), and the defendant at the police did not have legal reasons for replacing the pents of the park and making a remaining pents. This is recognized as being connected with the victim's sports park without special boundary.

However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above adopted evidence, it is difficult to say that the crime of larceny is established even if the defendant did not accurately recognize that the damaged article was owned by the victim at the time of committing the crime by another person, and even if the defendant knew that the damaged article was owned by another person, the crime of larceny is not established.

In other words, it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant had the intention of larceny at the time when pents were taken, even though he was aware that he was kept in a proper state at the above scene of the crime.

In addition, the fact that the above pension is owned by the victim is also recognized.

The above argument is with merit.

arrow