logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.19 2018노1839
절도등
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The Defendant had a victim at the place of the instant crime and had the mobile phone (referred to as “the instant mobile phone” hereinafter) as one’s own mobile phone and had the victim mistakens about the instant mobile phone. Therefore, there was no intention to steal the instant mobile phone.

2) The Defendant used gallon 8 telephones when the instant mobile phone and the external form were dead.

At the time of the instant case, the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol, left with the cell phone of this case, and came naturally 100 meters, and in the process, the Defendant was able to divide the conversation with the will of the Defendant.

The defendant is a self-employed person, and the husband of the defendant has economic leave, and there was no reason to steal the mobile phone of this case.

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

2. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court fully admitted that the Defendant’s intent to steal the instant mobile phone owned by the victim.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

A. At the time of the instant case, the victim set up the cell phone of this case on the front floor female toilets of the first floor of the building as indicated in the lower judgment, and opened the cell phone of this case on the front side and opened the cell phone of this case on the front side.

Before the lapse of 1 minute from the victim, the victim knew that the mobile phone of this case was placed in the above side column, and went to the above toilet.

B. The victim asked the defendant whether he had seen the mobile phone of this case, which was located in front of the above side, was seen as seen above, but the defendant did not view.

In response, I went out of the above toilet.

(c)

At the time of the birth of the victim in front of the above side.

arrow