logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.08.09 2017노6094
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, including the F’s statement on the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts), the Defendant may be found to have stolen the pumps of oil equivalent to KRW 20 million at the victim E (hereinafter “victim”) as stated in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On May 9, 2014, the Defendant: (a) was at the construction site of the CP B CP station located in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do on May 17:59, 2014; and (b) had F carry the pump, which is a construction material equivalent to KRW 20,000,00, at the victim’s market price stored therein, loaded on the vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the facts charged and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged.

1) Around 2014, the CP’s hospital located in Gyeonggi-gun Group C, and the Defendant’s operation was entering into a subcontract with G to perform the said construction, and the I operated the victim. The CP’s operation had been performing the water supply work.

2) The victim stated that the value of stolen construction materials at the above construction site is equivalent to KRW 20,000,000 and that the construction materials of this size are the amount to be loaded seven to eight times on one ton truck.

3) On the other hand, there remains a megato, on the other hand, a megato, in which F, carrying pipe in the south of the Stop CCTV on May 9, 2014 at around 17:59, a pipe was taken (Evidence No. 11), and even based on the victim’s statement, the CCTV screen at the time showed only pipe, etc. and the rotop did not appear. Thus, the rotop was loaded on the above vehicle.

Even if it comes to a small amount, it is estimated to be very small.

arrow