logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.12 2013고정6583
절도
Text

The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. Summary of the facts charged and the defendant's assertion

A. The summary of the facts charged is a patient who is receiving a mental treatment and finds a DNA hospital located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is a patient with a mental treatment.

On October 28, 2013, at around 09:45, the Defendant: (a) stolen one brecing 3,000 won in the city, using the gaps in which the surveillance of breging employees was neglected in the breging house, “E” in the instant hospital.

B. As to the facts charged in this case’s assertion, the Defendant consistently followed from the investigative agency to the present court, and argued that he was waiting for the calculation of the bread in the bread house as indicated in the facts charged, and that he was able to return to another hospital and to make a calculation, and that he did not have her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her her

2. As evidence that seems to correspond to the facts charged in the instant case, F’s police and court statement were made, but the above evidence and G’s police statement can be added to the following circumstances: ① G, an employee of the bread house, as indicated in the facts charged, made a statement corresponding to the Defendant’s argument that “at the time of the instant case, at the time, the Defendant appeared to have bbbbbbbbbbbing, but there was no light that makes it possible to look at all the circumstances due to a large number of customers,” ② in the court where the Defendant was arrested the Defendant as a flagrant offender of larceny, and the Defendant was entered in the court to the extent of two customers: Provided, That the Defendant was partly made a statement corresponding to the Defendant’s aforementioned argument that “at the time of the instant case, the said Defendant had been bbbbbbbbbing, to the extent of what was done before the bread house calculation room.”

arrow