logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.05.29 2017고정372
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a Dong-dong person who resides in the same Dong-dong as the victim D.

From springing in 2016 to September 2016, the Defendant stolen a 700,000 won or more of the victim D owned by Hongcheon-gun E, Hongcheon-gun.

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of a defendant in part in the protocol of second public trial;

1. Statements made by witnesses D in the second public trial records;

1. Statement made by the witness F in the third public trial records;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Each photograph;

1. The defendant asserts that he did not intend to commit theft or to acquire illegal gains, on the ground that he did not have any control over the punishment of this case, and that he did not prove that he did not own it as a victim.

As the adjacent residents gather burgicals when installing and managing the burgicals, the burgicals in mountain shall not be moved or brought to the location of the burgicals without permission of the person who installed the burgics easily by concluding them as the burgicals.

If it is clear that the punishment of this case is an object of property value, and considering the situation of the punishment of this case at the time, the punishment of this case seems to have been managed by another person.

The Defendant stated that “at the time of causing the instant penal box, there was another punishment in the wife, but instead, different from other punishments, he brought about the punishment in the instant penal box.”

In addition, the Defendant appears not to have been managed for about 2-3 years, and brought about the view that it was the ownership of the network H.

Although H made a statement, it revealed that the wife of the deceased 10 years prior to his death and the deceased her wife did not have a husband of the instant punishment.

In light of these circumstances, the defendant brought about the punishment of this case in the outsan.

arrow