logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2019.09.26 2019고정463
절도
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On January 27, 2019, the Defendant found that there was a flag in front of the building B and C Dong, and found the inside thereof through a tent transparent vinyl, and then stolen money and valuables equivalent to KRW 15,000,000, including a set of 10,000 and an electric wire, etc. equivalent to KRW 5,00,000, which were the victim-owned D, by tearing the tear of the blag, and inserting the inside thereof through the blag transparent vinyl.

2. The Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion did not steals from the victim’s packing horse to the victim’s seat.

3. Determination

A. The recognition of facts constituting an offense in a related legal doctrine criminal trial ought to be based on strict evidence of probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt, to the extent that such conviction would lead to a reasonable doubt. Therefore, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent that it would lead to such conviction, it should be determined based on the

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14487, Apr. 28, 2011). B.

Judgment

The following facts acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court: ① According to CCTV images, the Defendant stated from around January 27, 2019 to around 04:39:42 on the same day (on the other hand, 9 minutes in time, actual hours) from around January 27, 2019 to around 04:43:21 on the other hand, the Defendant left the left side of the packaging horse operated by the victim or left the front side and front of the packing horse; ② according to the photographs taken around January 11, 2019, the Defendant taken the front side and front side of the packing horse; ③ in light of the fact that the victim stated in this court that “the victim was present at the packaging, and there was no cable and no electric cable,” it is doubtful that the Defendant took a theft cable, not the victim’s packing cable, as stated in the facts charged.

However, the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court can be admitted as follows.

arrow