logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2015.08.12 2014고정233
절도등
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,500,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On January 4, 2012, the Defendant transferred to C, 302, and supplied urban gas from C, 302, but was subject to measures to suspend the supply on January 8, 2014 due to the unpaid payment of fees.

1. On January 8, 2014, the Defendant in violation of the Urban Gas Business Act interfered with the supply of urban gas by operating gas supply facilities without obtaining permission from urban gas business operators to use gas suspended in the above residential area.

2. From January 8, 2014, the Defendant for theft:

1. Until December 21, 200, using the same method as above 1. paragraph 1., the gas amounting to KRW 138,190 was stolen from the gas from the twitshing city without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. The legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Investigation report (verification of statements by staff E of the complainant company);

1. Photographss and photographs of gas supply suspension equipment;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning content certification and gas supply details;

1. Article 48(10) of the relevant Act concerning criminal facts, Article 48(10) of the former Urban Gas Business Act (wholly amended by Act No. 12926, Dec. 30, 2014), Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines for negligence

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant did not destroy the suspension of supply installed in the gas supply valve at the Defendant’s home (hereinafter “the instant suspension of supply”).

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant could fully recognize the fact that the instant suspension of supply was destroyed. A.

The supply of this case is suspended.

arrow