logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.04.22 2015고단586
야간주거침입절도
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On February 20, 2015, at around 20:00, the Defendant confirmed that there is no seal at the victim D’s house located in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and opened a lock door by inserting and cutting the entrance door door door, and intrudes into the entrance door door, and then, the Defendant kept 20,000,000 won of the market price in the room, which is the victim’s own price, and 90,000 won of the market price, and 20,000,00,000, a mobile phone charging machine, 800 won of cash, 800 won of the passbook, and one check card.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence at night and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. Records of seizure, lists of seizure and photographs of seized articles;

1. Investigation report (verification of sunset time);

1. Application of the seized provisional Acts and subordinate statutes (No. 3);

1. Article 330 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act (Consideration of sentencing)

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 48(1)1 of the Criminal Act of confiscation [the scope of recommending punishment] The basic area (one to two years and six months) of the thth category of the thth category of the thief for general property [the decision of sentence] defendant has the record of being suspended from the execution of the same crime.

On the other hand, the Defendant appears to have committed a crime because of the absence of money. In light of all the circumstances, the Defendant is sentenced to the same punishment as the order, taking into account the following: (a) it is difficult to view that the Defendant had the same ability as the ordinary person due to intellectual disability 3; (b) the amount of damage is not much high; and (c) Kameras

arrow