beta
Text
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.
Reasons
1. The summary of the facts charged lies in Defendant A from December 2009 to September 14, 2013; Defendant B from January 2010 to September 16, 2013, and from September 16, 2013, Defendant B, respectively, serving as an employee at the victim H first point in the victim H operation of Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and is in charge of the sale, lease, and SS of composite equipment, printer and expendable products.
Defendant
A and Defendant B are in the relationship between the South and North of Korea, and Defendant A managed the keys of the above Shindoe I. A.
Defendant
A around 07:58 on July 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) took advantage of the gaps in which other employees, such as the victim, etc., were neglected to monitor before the victim et al., to work at the new NA located in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant stolen property worth KRW 20,534,000, a total market value of the victim’s market value owned by the victim through the aforementioned method 18 times in total, as shown in attached Table 1, from around that time until August 24, 2013.
B. From July 12, 2013 to August 24, 2013, Defendant B: (a) took advantage of the gaps in which other employees, such as the victim, etc., were neglected surveillance prior to their work at the new evise I point in the operation of the victim H in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) taken advantage of the gaps in which the victim et al., were in custody at the above store, and took advantage of the amount of KRW 1,281,00,000, total market price of KRW 23,574,000 in total, as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form 2, from that time until August 24, 2013, the Defendant stolen property of KRW 23,574,00,000 in the market price owned by the victim by the above method as above, as shown in the victim list 2.
2. Determination
A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial of relevant legal principles is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction should be based on the evidence of probative value that makes the judge feel true to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt, and such evidence is not sufficient.