(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014고정3495

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.02.06 2014고정3495

절도

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On July 21, 2014, around 16:50 on July 21, 2014, the Defendant stolen the victim C, the representative of the victim C, Dong 724, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by putting one Kamermermerra in the city of the city into gambling.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C’s legal statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to recording or recording files;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is asserted to the effect that the defendant was allowed to bring the company operated by the victim to the Kameras including the Mameras at the time of withdrawal from the company.

Therefore, the following facts revealed by the evidence mentioned above, i.e., the victim's statement that he would bring the main body of this case to the defendant, even though it is acknowledged, it does not seem to have explicitly expressed that the victim would bring the main body of this case to the defendant. The defendant argued that the defendant would bring the same effect to the company due to the fact that the employee's delivery of the main body of this case, and that it would not be appropriate to keep the main body of this case to the company. However, the defendant's delivery of the main body of this case, including the main body of this case, is lacking persuasive power, and the defendant's storage of the main body of this case was caused by many problems of the main body of this case, and thus, he refused to return it from the victim. In this court, it is not consistent with the defendant's statement, such as the defendant's statement that the company operating the main body of this case was trying to solve the problem of the main body of this case and to inform it to the victim.

참조조문

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.06.23 2014가단24455

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015노293

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.07.15 2014고단1020

-의정부지방법원 2018.06.07 2017나214757

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.01.23 2012고단6593