logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.07.06 2016노912
절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is the fact that the Defendant was able to wear a wall that fell away from the Kabter because he was unable to do so, and the Defendant cited the wall, sealed the content thereof, and received the wall as a lost article, and there is no intention of illegal acquisition.

2. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the court below rejected the above argument. The circumstances acknowledged by the court below, which are acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below, i., ① the victim's "the defendant brought on the victim's wall" requested a telephone call to the defendant's day who was on the next table, and called the defendant's day table, ② the defendant called the victim's speech, ② the defendant called the victim's speech, ② the defendant called the victim's "defabababababababab", ③ the defendant's Kabababa, and the defendant found the victim's house at the location of the CCTV, ④ the defendant's credit card on the victim's wall was put into the victim's wall, and then the victim's wall was placed in the back section with the victim's resident registration certificate attached to the victim's wall.

In addition, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's ground of appeal is not persuasive, but is inconsistent with the victim's statement that there was 2.10,000 won within the above wall, because the above article was not received as a lost article by the South Docheon Postal Office having jurisdiction over the above box, and 5. The defendant's ground of appeal that the defendant's ground of appeal that the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against the defendant's ground of appeal against this error is inconsistent with the victim's statement that there was 2.10,00 won within the above ground of appeal.

arrow