logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2013.04.02 2013고단35
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for one year and six months.

Two copies of seized test color bags, leathers, and type of stamper for test color work.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

B considered the defendant A as the principal between the defendant A's father and his father.

The Defendants stolen home appliances such as Twitba, etc. in the community hall where Defendant A’s family’s livelihood is difficult, etc., and resolved to sell the Internet commercial transaction site and use them for living expenses after raising money.

1. On June 30, 2012, the Defendants opened a 'F of the Victim E management in Yong-Namnam A’s Republic of Korea, and intruded inside, and discovered one set of TV equivalent to KRW 1,200,000 at the market price of the victim stored therein.

The Defendants collected the above television and loaded it into the back seat of the G Kanop vehicle owned by Defendant A.

The Defendants, together with the aforementioned, stolen the victim’s property from around that time to December 28, 2012, and stolen the property worth KRW 5,1670,000,000, in total, 58 times, as shown in attached Table 1, from around that time.

2. On September 2012, 2012, the Defendants reported the gap between the victim I’s I’s supervision over H apartment operation 203 Y apartment 203, and the victim I’s supervision was neglected in the vicinity of the Defendants, and the Defendant B cut off the correction device of the victim’s own market price of KRW 1,000,000, which was corrected at the scene by using the cutting device prepared in advance, and laid off the bicycle in the back seat of the GMA car owned by the Defendant.

The Defendants, together with the aforementioned, stolen the victim’s property and stolen the bicycles totaling KRW 6,279,100 from around that time to September 21, 2012, as shown in the attached Table 2, including the theft of the victim’s property.

As a result, the Defendants habitually stolen property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective statements in the first trial records;

1. Each prosecutor's interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. Each statement of statement;

arrow