logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015고정1488
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

On June 4, 2015, at around 07:33, the Defendant, at the “D Public Notice Board” located in the second floor in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the victim E, who was on the separate collection box prior to the entrance, committed a theft by putting one cellular phone 1 in the market price of Samsung Galthom, which was the victim E, in front of the entrance.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the suspect examination of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel asserted that the investigation report (on-site investigation) (the determination of the defendant and his/her defense counsel's assertion) merely cited the cell phone device of this case for the purpose of searching for the main person and did not have the intention of unlawful acquisition or theft.

The intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intent to use or dispose of another person's goods as his/her own property, and it does not require any intent to permanently hold economic benefits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Do3465, Sept. 6, 2002; 2005Do7819, Mar. 9, 2006; 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). The following circumstances revealed by the above evidence are as follows: ① (i) the Defendant was placed on his/her own initiative prior to the separate collection box to find the owner as lost goods; (ii) the Defendant did not return the CCTV to the owner of the mobile phone without any consent from the owner of the mobile phone; and (iii) the Defendant did not return it to the owner of the mobile phone without any consent from the owner of the mobile phone; and (iv) the Defendant did not return it to the owner of the mobile phone.

arrow