logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2014.04.04 2013노1066
절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. It is true that the defendant did not return thenet North of this case while keeping it for the victim E, as stated in the facts constituting the crime of the court below.

However, at the time, the Defendant: (a) lent thenet North to the outside of the store with the permission of F of the store staff member F of the instant store; (b) used thenet to meet or translate the H; (c) lost thenet North on the day of the instant case because time was too late; and (d) did not return thenet North on the day of the instant case; and (c) did not return thenet North as a forgotten relation, and (d) did not return it, and did not intend to obtain unlawful acquisition, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The defendant and his defense counsel argued in the court below's decision that the reasons for the appeal are identical to the assertion of mistake, and the court below rejected the above argument in detail in the "reasons for the crime of oil" column. In addition to the above judgment of the court below, the defendant took the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the court below, namely, the defendant falsely informed the store staff F of his personal information while taking advantage of thenet in this case. ② However, although the defendant did not receive any identification card at the time, he was returned to F with the relation that he did not have any identification card but did not receive any identification card, the defendant notified another person of his name and his telephone number was notified of his idea or number in the name, and did not want to inform him of it falsely due to any disorder of memory, and the defendant did not have any intention to inform him of his false identification. However, since the investigation agency from the court below to the court below, the defendant did not have any identification card again, and did not bring about the defendant again.

at the time;

arrow