logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.01.22 2018고정788
점유이탈물횡령
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On April 4, 2018, the Defendant, at the front parking lot of the Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon, at around 13:04, found one mobile phone unit of the E mobile phone equivalent to one million won at the market price where the victim D (the age of 52) lost.

The Defendant did not take necessary procedures, such as returning the acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of CCTV Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 360 (1) of the Criminal Act that prescribes the punishment for the crime (Embezzlement and fine for the escape of possession);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for detention in a workhouse (when a suspended sentence of imprisonment is invalidated or revoked);

1. Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act on the Suspension of Execution [the elderly who appears to have caused a situation in which the detention was scattered from time to time, and which could not be fully preserved] [the defendant's defense counsel] (the defendant's defense counsel did not have any reason to desire to use other person's smartphones, and there was no awareness that other person would use the mobile phone of this case because he did not know how to use other person's smartphones. However, in light of the fact that the defendant who appears in CCTV photographs did not have an intention to acquire a new mobile phone separately from the defendant in the light of the loss or moving screen of the victim's mobile phone handling or protecting the victim's mobile phone, it cannot be said that the defendant did not have any intention to embezzled the mobile phone that was separated from the victim's possession];

arrow