logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2014.09.19 2014고정590
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On August 7, 2013, the Defendant sold to the victim D the land planted at approximately KRW 450 million among approximately 91,570 square meters in Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, Seopo-si, for sale. The victim harvested the land at KRW 50 million, and left the land at approximately KRW 600 without harvesting it.

The defendant from February 23, 2014 to the following day.

2. From 24.10:00, up to 24.10:10, ten workers were employed, and approximately 1300 km, the market price of which was 3.9 million won, and then stolen the investigation records of KRW 56.0 million.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witness D's testimony;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Determination on a sales contract, a copy of the land register, and the defense counsel’s assertion

1. The Defendant had to pay 27 million won to the Defendant more than the Defendant. However, the Defendant asserted that there was a prior support by the victim since the Defendant sold the instant land to the Defendant and paid a part of the sales proceeds thereof to the Defendant. However, according to the evidence, the Defendant: (a) even though the Defendant was able to harvest the Defendant’s agent F from the victim’s telephone prior to the Defendant’s work, the Defendant merely said that “the Defendant was working with the victim’s consent” and (b) the Defendant did not consent even if the Defendant had a direct telephone conversations with the victim on February 24, 2014; (c) so, the foregoing argument cannot be accepted.

2. The defense counsel asserts that the instant Dora does not constitute larceny because the ownership of the instant Dora is still the Defendant because it did not take measures with respect to the nominal method under the customary law. However, considering that the victim purchased the Dorara from the Defendant, and partly harvested the Dora, and left the remaining Dora in the instant Dora.

arrow