logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2016.06.16 2016노487
야간건조물침입절도등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts constitutes a theft of goods owned by the victim I at the time and place specified in the crime 3. A. However, the Defendant’s stolen item is 15 million won in cash.

Nevertheless, as the court below recognized the stolen item as the 13 passbook and 3,50,000 won in cash, there is an error of misunderstanding this part of the facts.

B. The punishment of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court: (a) the Defendant recognized all the facts charged in the instant case in the lower court; (b) there are no special circumstances to suspect credibility in the confession; (c) the Defendant clearly stated that the goods stolen by the said victim at an investigative agency are KRW 13 and KRW 3.50,00 in cash; and (iii) the Defendant committed a similar crime on the adjacent day, other than the above crime, and thus, cannot be ruled out that the Defendant could not accurately memory the stolen items or amount; and (d) the Defendant stolen the said victim’s account amount of KRW 13 and KRW 3.50,00 in cash, as indicated in the above facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Although sentencing is recognized most of the instant crimes, the instant crime committed by the Defendant, even at night, by intrusion upon another person’s residence, stolen goods, and withdrawal of cash using a stolen passbook. The crime of this case is considerably similar to that of the instant crime, and the Defendant already committed the instant crime within a short period, even though he/she had been subject to criminal punishment several times for the same crime, and even during the repeated offense period, repeatedly committed the instant crime. The amount of damage caused by the instant crime does not fall short of the amount of damage, and at all, recover damage to the victims.

arrow