(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.10 2017고정726

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.11.10 2017고정726

절도

Text

The defendant is not guilty, and the summary of the judgment of innocence is publicly notified.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts of prosecution was from around December 2016 to operate a mutual clothes store with the victim D and the victim E at the end of Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 1st floor with the victim D and the victim E. However, while the Defendant was suffering from insurified due to the issues such as the arrangement of stores, the relationship was virtually terminated on January 16, 2017.

Accordingly, the victims who were in charge of the actual sales in the above store were closed from January 20, 2017.

On January 20, 2017, the Defendant opened the above store door and opened the store as key from around 12:00 to around 19:00 on January 22, 2017, the Defendant opened the store door and opened the store. Pursuant to 10,000 won of the market price, which is the victims' possession, displayed at the above place, the amount of 10,000 won of the market price, 100,000 won of the car color 10,000 won of the market price, 200,000 won of the market price, 10,000 won of the market price, 40,000 won of the market price, 10,000 won of the 40,000 won of the market price, 150,000 won of the 40,000 won of the market price, 10,000 won of the car market price, 14,50,000 won of the market price.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen property worth 2760,000 won in the market price owned by the victims.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and his defense counsel brought about to sell the Defendant to the Chinese side on or before January 16, 2017, except for a fluoring fluoring 1 punishment (the market value equivalent to 500,000 won) among the products entered in the indictment. The Defendant and his defense counsel brought about only red fluoring fluoring fluoring, which was purchased by the victims, and there was no intention to larceny.

The argument is asserted.

B. 1) According to the legal statements and evidence of victims E and D, the following facts are revealed.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.07.12 2017노1584

-수원지방법원 2019.05.23 2018고단7280

-춘천지방법원 영월지원 2014.06.27 2013고단609

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.12 2018고단57

-의정부지방법원 2019.06.21 2019고단1284