(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.12.16 2019고정901

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.12.16 2019고정901

절도

Text

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

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 13:00 on May 4, 2019, the Defendant supplied alcoholic beverages, such as glass, at the stores of Sungnam-gu building C and the victim D, and displayed them in a scam, and then cut off seven bottles, which are the victim-owned market price of KRW 14,00,00, displayed in a scambling by making use of the gaps where employees’ surveillance was neglected, by putting them in a scambling room.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in court (a statement that the defendant brought about galmorri, such as the time of indication);

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F and G;

1. Police suspect interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. The defendant asserts that the investigation report (ctv verification) brought about the goods to be discarded after the expiration of the distribution period, and that the work to be done on the part of marina was done on the part of the service, and there was no intention to larceny.

However, since Mart returned goods that have not been sold until the expiration of the period of circulation and was practices to deduct them from the price or receive new goods as such, the issue of whether the period of circulation has passed and the amount of the price to be paid to the supplier is likely to affect the supplier. As the Defendant asserts, the Defendant changed the contract at the time of the instant case and paid the price in full as much as the delivery was received without returning it.

Even if it is an item with the expiration of the circulation period and the quantity thereof affect the determination of the quantity of supply after the expiration of the distribution period as well as the determination of the quantity of supply after the expiration of the distribution period.

From the viewpoint of Eart, the existence of the product itself and the indication of its distribution deadline are important evidence, and if the supplier or the supplier is returned or disposed of by proxy, it is essential to confirm and consent in advance on the part of Ete.

If such procedures were not followed, the value of the property was extinguished from the standpoint of the Mart, with the expiration of the distribution period.

subsection (b) of this section.

The defendant was well aware of this.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2014.09.03 2014고정435

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.05.19 2019나31938

-광주지방법원 2017.01.12 2016구단11035

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.01 2015노319

-수원지방법원 2016.03.04 2015구단3168