beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged is between C (36 years of age) and E in C (36 years of age) and C (35 years of age), and the F (35 years of age) is between C and C.
At around 24:00 on March 20, 2013, the Defendant: (a) took advantage of the gaps in the above E office, and took advantage of the keys of G E E E EF car, the F owner of which was on his book, was driving the said car while driving the car.
B. The Defendant, at the end of March 2013, operated the E office, as described in paragraph (1), with a vehicle accident while driving the Ecoos car that was stolen, as described in paragraph (1), and that C demands the repair cost of the vehicle, I would like to say, “C will die” to the E’s staff H, and such words would be the same.
4. The first police officer C threatened C by hearing the former from H.
2. Determination
A. As to larceny, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case as follows, namely, C purchased the instant vehicle in the name of wife F for use in E business, and the Defendant, who had worked in the above E, operated the said vehicle for a short time other than for business purposes (see, e.g., the 9th page of the Investigation Record), there was no reason to steal the said vehicle, and the Defendant at the time was driving the said vehicle again, but did not bring about the said vehicle again, but at the time, did not bring about a traffic accident, but did not bring about the said vehicle again, the Defendant called “unclaimed” after the traffic accident, and sent the said vehicle to C by phone to the industrial company, and thereafter, the Defendant was sent to C with the said vehicle at the time after the traffic accident. In full view of all the circumstances such as the fact that F stated in the investigative agency and this court that “the victim was filing a complaint due to the injury” (the seventh page of the Investigation Record), the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an intentional theft of the Defendant at the time.
B. As to intimidation, this part is applicable.