logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2016.06.16 2016노108
점유이탈물횡령
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant only stored a 3 mobile phone without having sold it in the middle jumal jum (the possession of the instant objects), and thus, there was an unlawful acquisition intent against the Defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a matter of law.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the lower judgment, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant discovered one cellular phone 3 in lugal lusium, which the victim F was on board as a customer as stated in the facts constituting the offense in the judgment of the lower court, and that the Defendant embezzled it as stolen property.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of factual mistake is rejected.

0. At the investigative agency and the court of the court below, the witness G was slicking the light of the screen of the mobile phone at the slick road at the new wall time in order to purchase stolen mobile phones. However, the defendant's cab was stopped, and the witness was slick at the above string of the taxi, and the defendant showed the 3 mobile phone at the gallon jum of the defendant's gallon, which is the object of possession of this case, at the gallon at his own string of the taxi. "I can see it."

“...... to the extent of the price”

“In making inquiries,” the witness “the old mobile phone called.”

The price is known.

(2) No person shall live.

The phrase “a statement that a police officer was arrested while interested in price.”

G’s statement is very detailed and productive, and it is reasonable to explain its situation, and otherwise, G makes a false statement in order to raise the defendant.

G’s statement is extremely reliable, and its credibility is high.

0 The defendant was engaged in purchasing stolen mobile phones in order to simply identify the method of charging the instant mobile phone.

G was involved only in the vehicle.

arrow