logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.04.08 2014고단6422
절도
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. On May 2012, the Defendant: (a) at the site of the construction of a new elderly hospital located in Chungcheongnam-si, Chungcheongnam-gun; (b) at the site of the construction of a new elderly hospital located in the Hahnyeong-gun; (c) at the Nadong line (95S Q); (d) 1; (c) 20; and (d) purchased-type electric stuffs; and (e) 10,000,000,000, with electric equipment equivalent to KRW 1,30,000,000 at the market price on which the equipment was kept, the Defendant used a

2. The Defendant asserts that there was no theft of container stuffs consistently stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “instant container”) from the investigative agency to the court.

In light of the following circumstances according to the record, it is difficult to deem that the adopted evidence alone was sufficient to prove the facts charged that the Defendant stolen the instant container, and there is no other evidence to prove the facts charged.

Therefore, since the facts charged fall under the case where there is no proof of crime, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

1. D did not commit theft as stated in the facts charged by the Defendant, and transferred it to F at the construction site.

In addition, each of the pertinent parts of the statement made by D and the police statement made by D that the Defendant sold the container of this case is admissible as evidence on the grounds that there are no circumstances to deem that the Defendant’s statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances pursuant to Article 316(1) of the Criminal Act, as it is the statement made by D or the protocol made by the police on Doshed D, and that such statement was made under particularly reliable circumstances.

② Although F directly considered a crime as stated in the facts charged, F stated that the date and time as stated in the facts charged, and whether there was a defendant at the place.

In addition, while emphasizing that the Defendant carried out and carried out containers or materials from time to time at the construction site of Pyeongtaek, this case’s container was taken out at the construction site.

arrow