logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2017고단5000
절도
Text

The defendant shall be exempted from punishment.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On June 22, 2017, the Defendant was sentenced to the suspension of the execution of imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on August 2, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on September 26, 2017.

On February 23, 2016, at around 03:10 on February 23, 2016, the Defendant: (a) committed theft with 4 (M-T530) table PCs at the victim’s jugal gal ju, which was located in the victim’s chill by taking advantage of the gaps of surveillance neglected due to the leaving of the victim; and (b) the market value of Samsung Gal ju, which is equivalent to 300,000 won, owned by the victim.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Written statements of D;

1. A report on internal investigation (related to field exploration) and a gene appraisal report;

1. Previous convictions: The defendant's legal statement, inquiry about criminal history, reporting of his/her previous convictions and reporting of the results thereof, and application of statutes governing the judgment;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 37 of the Criminal Act for the treatment of concurrent crimes: Provided, That Article 39 (1) shall apply;

1. The latter part of Article 39(1) of the Exemption of Criminal Procedure Act [Article 13(1) of the Constitution shall not be repeatedly punished for the same crime when a criminal trial becomes final and conclusive, and Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act shall be sentenced to acquittal by judgment where a public prosecution is instituted for the same case as a case with a final and conclusive judgment (Article 326 subparag. 1 of the Criminal Procedure Act). Meanwhile, the identity of facts or facts constituting an offense is the concept of the Criminal Procedure Act, and this shall take into account the significance or legal function of the criminal proceedings. As such, the issue of whether the basic facts of the two crimes are identical cannot be determined solely from a pure social and legal point of view without completely excluding normative elements, and it is reasonable to deem that such normative elements as well as whether the natural, social, or defendant's act is identical, constitute a substantial part of the identity of basic facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do2080, Mar. 22, 1994>

arrow