logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 정읍지원 2019.09.24 2019고정49
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

The Defendant was working as a technician B, who was operated by the victim around July 2016.

The Defendant on July 2, 2016 -

7. Around 20.20.M. D construction site located in the Gyeongan-gun C, a Gyeongan-gun, and the victim E (the age of 47) who was placed in the two islands 300LC Scres that he operated, deducted approximately 60 litress of light oil equivalent to 7-80,000 won and used in the F, a personal vehicle, by inserting them in the color fexton vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Determination as to the assertion of the accused and the defense counsel on the investigation report (the date and time of the crime and the specification of the suspected vehicle)

1. The gist of the assertion has not been stolen;

2. Determination H stated that, at the same site as the Defendant, at the same time, he was engaged in a scke construction, the Defendant was present with sckes and vehicles, and the Defendant was present with sckes and vehicles, and that he was present with sckes and sckes.

G is clearly stating that it is difficult to directly refer to the defendant as a field manager, and it is difficult to say that the defendant has reported it to E by telephone.

Although each of the statements of the witnesses has a little part in the location after the lapse of time, it is possible to believe that specific and contents are consistent.

Application of Statutes

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 punishment shall be determined in consideration of the fact that E has filed a late complaint following the defendant, and the fact that the amount of damage is insignificant, as civil litigation continues between the defendant and E in the grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

arrow