logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2013.06.20 2013노265
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Although the victim removed the signboard and delivered the removed signboard to keep it on the rooftop, the defendant arbitrarily disposed of the two signboards with economic value. This constitutes larceny. However, the court below accepted the defendant's vindication that "the victim's signboard was destroyed by salute" and acquitted the defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misconception of facts.

2. Determination:

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) removed, as a signboard constructor, two advertising signboards of the complainants attached to the third floor of the commercial building; (b) removed, inter alia, two commercial office signboards attached to the building rooftop; and (c) removed, inter alia, the complainants for work requested to attach a standing signboard that is newly occupied in the upper floor of the building; and (d) removed, removed, and then cut off, at around 02:00 on December 2, 201, two advertising signboards owned by the complainants (hereinafter “E”) attached to the building of the Gu Government-si 3th floor; and (c) cut off, without keeping them on the rooftop as ordered by the work, two signboards in a voluntary manner that they dispose of.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant testified that the Defendant’s intentional removal of the signboard was the only statement C and F, which is the evidence of evidence that the Defendant intentionally removed the signboard, and that ① the complainant agreed to lease the two sides of the building, namely, four signboards installed in the building, E, e, two signboards and two licensed real estate agents, and F, instructed F to install cosmetic signboards on the rooftop, and ② the witness F testified that the complainant’s above stories and the Defendant sent all signboards to the rooftop, but, on the other hand, the witness F testified did not facilitate communication with the complainant in relation to the removal of the signboard at the time.

arrow