(영문) 제주지방법원 2018.01.24 2017고정370

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) 제주지방법원 2018.01.24 2017고정370

건조물침입등

Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On March 2016, around 12:00, the Defendant: (a) opened and intruded in a closed door and a closed door in a water source warehouse managed by the victim D (58 tax) located in Jeju at Jeju; and (b) stolen the Defendant with the string unit of E E, E, E, E, E, E, the victim’s possession of the market value of KRW 44,00,000 at that location.

2. Among the evidence that correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, there was a statement in the victim D's investigative agency and court that the Defendant stolen the key to the victim's vehicle lives without the victim's consent. However, the following circumstances revealed by the records in the instant case, namely, the victim's statement at the court was inaccurate and consistent, including: (i) the victim's statement was made on January 1, 2016 at the first time on the date of theft; and (ii) the statement submitted by the court on July 25, 2017 was inaccurate and inconsistent; and (iii) the statement was submitted by the court on July 25, 2017, stating that "the victim was the victim's consent; and (iv) the victim was the victim's blood lives." However, the testimony at the court on October 11, 2017 was not possible to report a real certificate.

Around April 14, 2017, the Defendant reported the Defendant to the Seopo Police Station, stating that the position continues to be reversed, and (3) even according to the victim’s statement, the Defendant was exposed to the victim’s excessive storage, and even on the day he was stolen, it is difficult to believe in light of the fact that it is not easy for the Defendant to bring the key to the pro-con of the vehicle without the victim’s implied consent, and it is difficult to bring about it to the victim at a broad place. The remaining evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant was stolen against the victim’s will beyond the fact that the Defendant had a key to the pro-con of the vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2016.11.11 2016노2762

-창원지방법원 2018.11.08 2017노2120

-창원지방법원 2018.10.31 2018고단1728

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.01.25 2017고단2702

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.12 2015노5028