logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 목포지원 2016.10.07 2016고정225
절도
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. The Defendant, around November 11, 2015, stolen KRW 455,00 in cash, which was put in S4 mobile phones and cellular phone cases, in the gallon road, which is a cellular phone owned by the victim C, set temporarily set up in the indoor gymnacoam in Yong-gun, Youngnam National Cancer, Youngnam-gun, the Defendant of the instant facts charged.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

2. The defendant's assertion is found in the parking lot of an indoor sports center that finds out that the mobile phone case that does not contain a mobile phone and cash has been abandoned, and found the main person and kept it on his/her own, and there is no fact that he/she has a mobile phone set up in an indoor sports center and its case.

3. Each of the statements made by the victim in the court and the police, each of the investigation reports, and CCTV video CDs are admitted as evidence that seem to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, each statement in the victim's court and the police was carried out with the victim's cell phone in a gymnasium client with a cell phone with cash and returned again, and thus, the above mobile phone became dead, not that the defendant appeared to have been present, and each investigation report also determined that the defendant carried out the above mobile phone with the gymnas cosor, etc. on the basis of the CCTV images of the indoor sports center at the time of the investigation report, and therefore, the direct evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case is only CCTV images.

However, considering the following circumstances admitted by the evidence adopted and investigated by this court, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant left the above mobile phone only with CCTV images, etc., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

1) Although CCTV images are in the face of the Defendant’s hand on his table (1254:00 files), there are no images between 1:03:04 video and 19 seconds immediately thereafter, the said images alone are cell phoness on their table at the time.

arrow