logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2018.12.20 2018고단1081
특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of one year and six months.

Reasons

Criminal facts

On September 7, 2004, the Defendant was sentenced to one year and six months of imprisonment for a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes, and on November 23, 2007, the Seoul High Court sentenced the Defendant to three years of imprisonment for night intrusion larceny, etc. on July 25, 2013. The former District Court sentenced the Defendant to one year of imprisonment for larceny, etc. on December 23, 2016, and completed the execution of the sentence on June 22, 2017.

1. On November 1, 2018, the Defendant discovered a e-car owned by the victim D, which was parked without having opened a entrance before 'C located in Masan-si, Changwon-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, on November 1, 2018. Around November 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) opened a door for driving the said car and intruded into it; (b) one 18 K K lap (170,000 won in cash owned by the victim between the seat and the chief of the steering zone; and (c) one 18 K K lap (10,000 won in market price) and one 480,000 won in market price; (d) one 18 K Gap (including a meral); (e) one son-si (including a meral); (e) one 120,000 won in the market price of the said car; and (e) one 300 billion won in the Gyeong-do.

As a result, the Defendant, who was sentenced to imprisonment more than three times for theft crimes, stolen the victim's property during the period of repeated crime.

2. The Defendant, on November 3, 2018, offered gold booms and gold booms as collateral from the Hulgpo operated by the injured party G in the Simsan-si, Changwon-si, Seoul, as a collateral, around November 3, 2018, intends to borrow money from the Defendant who is in charge of gold booms and gold booms due to lack of living costs.

“A false representation was made.”

However, the facts revealed that the Defendant was not holding the Defendant as a theft from D, as stated in paragraph 1, and that the Defendant disposed of the gold gings and gold gings, which are stolens, and that he thought that he had an opportunity to sell money, so even if the said gold gings and gold gings are borrowed money from the injured party as security.

arrow