logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2013.08.08 2013고정2003
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On March 25, 2013, around 17:30 on March 25, 2013, the Defendant discovered a bank set up in C Bus B apartment bus stops in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and moved the bank to a seat with the victim D (53 years old). At around 17:59, the Defendant brought a theft of the above bank that contains cash of KRW 120,000, smartphones, etc.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (C CCTV analysis);

1. Investigation report (specific suspect);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Selection of Punishment for the Crime. Article 329 (Selection of Fine)

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserted that he did not have an intention of theft since he/she visited the police box after acquiring the instant bank, but visited the police box in order to find the owner, and the door was not returned. However, according to the evidence as seen above, the Defendant: (i) discovered that the victim gets on the bus, moved to the spot, followed up eight minutes, and moved to the spot, and (ii) carried the driver’s license and resident registration certificate within the bus, and the credit card, etc. were put into the box; (iii) the driver’s license and the resident registration certificate within the bus was put in the box; and (iv) the Defendant was returned to the police box after 20 days have passed since the temporary and smartphone was stored in the house, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that he/she had an intention to commit a theft, as he/she had the intent to use and dispose of the property owned by him/her.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

arrow