(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노58 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.16 2017노58

절도

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal 1) The Defendant did not steals the victim’s wallets.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination 1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court as a whole, the Defendant’s theft of the victim’s wallet can be fully acknowledged.

(1) On the day of committing the crime, the defendant found the victim's wallets around 13:45:4, and immediately moved his seat by hand.

Then, as it seems that they want to cover the following gates, they laid their own bags before the walling, and 13:45 :52 Happed up 13:52.

The defendant and the carpet operator F (the witness of the court below) did not appear to have any other person than the defendant and the defendant's own from the F's location (CCTV ch2 image). (2) The defendant did not keep the wall until 13:48:22, and the location of the wall is the same).

There was no notification of the existence of A to F.

Since then 13:49:18, CCTVs were suspended due to the fact that the Defendant continued to sit on the spot, and the movement of the Defendant was not reduced (the Defendant opened a wall to check the amount of money on the wall and confirmed the amount of money on the wall).

In light of the fact that the face of the CCTV was not taken, it seems that the above CCTV does not have the ability to reduce the movement in the situation where the person walkes or walks significantly. ③ The CCTV that the Defendant occurred on the 13:49:16 sides was re-explodedd, and until 13:48:22, the wall wall that was located on the side of the Defendant was set up in the front video, and the Defendant’s bank that was set up on the side of the wall was set up in the front video is set up on the cover of the seat of the wall.

The defendant, after the death of A, has become the defendant, whether C.C. F.D. is the defendant

F. F. F. F. F. at the time of being sucked after being sucked or sucked after being sucked.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.12.20 2019노3619

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.19 2019노742

-부산지방법원 2014.05.14 2014고단1202

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2015.07.23 2015고정359

-광주고등법원 2013.02.07 2012노583