logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.08.12 2016고단2821
야간방실침입절도등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. On May 28, 2016, the Defendant: (a) opened and intrudes a locked door with which the victim E is under the influence of alcohol at around 04:20 on May 28, 2016, the Defendant: (b) opened and intrudes a locked door at around 201, where the victim E is under the influence of alcohol; and (c) held one set of 175,000 won in cash and one set of 175,000 in cash, resident registration certificates, driver’s license certificates, and 50,000 Scenic land leveling to 50,000 won in the market price owned by the victim.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the property owned by the victim by intrusion into the room occupied by the victim at night.

2. From May 28, 2016, around 07:30 on May 28, 2016, the Defendant issued an order for alcohol and an alcoholic beverage to Hing shop located in Busan-gu Busan-gu, and issued an order to pay KRW 300,000 to the victim as if he was a legitimate licensee.

Accordingly, the Defendant, by deceiving the victim, was issued an alcoholic beverage or a share equivalent to KRW 300,00, and used a stolen debit card.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement concerning the suspect interrogation protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Police statements made to E, I and J;

1. An identification card sales slip;

1. Each protocol of seizure and each list of seizure;

1. Three copies of a photograph of a CCTV course;

1. One copy of confirmation of the victim E-explosion and inquiry of transaction details (First, the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no theft as stated in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel is not accepted, since the fact of theft is sufficiently recognized as shown in paragraph 1 of the judgment of the defendant.

(1) The defendant was not in the vicinity of the place where the crime was committed under paragraph (1).

Then, the above crime was committed.

arrow