logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2014.12.04 2014고정527
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, from June 2013 to October 2013 of the same year, leased the “Emart” of the victim D’s operation located in Dong-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul to operate a welfare store at that place, under the lease:

9.3. At around 12:30, the victim’s market price in the instant marina store was 96,000 won and was thefted with six chain pipes.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement on the second trial date in court;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the accused (No. 6 of the evidence list);

1. Statement of the police statement against D (Evidence No. 1);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to invoice (No. 2 book No. 2 of investigation records)

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the same Act concerning the crime, selection of fines;

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

1. The portion not guilty under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Around August 2013, the Defendant: (a) committed a theft with a fresh and a single fresh with the victim D’s market price at the store located in the store, where the market price is unknown; and (b) around August 2013.

2. When collecting statements from the investigative agencies of F of F of the witness F and from this court and from G in this court, the Defendant temporarily exchanged the frozen meat in the above marina store on condition of freezing and returning it, but the Defendant appears to have collected the freezing out of F of the store, the original owner of which did not have the freezing, from the non-stock corporation, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Defendant had the criminal intent of theft solely on the ground that the Defendant did not have any freezing, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

3. In conclusion, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

arrow