logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 서부지원 2017.09.05 2017고정62
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Between February 10, 2017. 15:20 to 16:00,00, the Defendant taken up five clothes equivalent to KRW 4,000,00,00 in the market price of the victim in front of the 345 agricultural village, Seo-gu, Seogu, Seo-gu, Busan, Seo-gu, 345, in order for the victim C to come up with the locked land and set up on the roadside.

Then, the theft was committed.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. C Legal statement;

1. Photographs of damage scene;

1. The photograph of CCTV images to be cut [the defendant and his defense counsel did not possess the bank of this case at the time of committing the crime of this case, and the defendant knew that the damaged person was to throw away the damaged object and did not have the intention of larceny.

The argument is asserted.

In light of the following circumstances as revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this Court, the victim set up a room on the front side of the NAA building, reported the necessary affairs immediately and lost, and returned to the necessary affairs. The victim's clothes and bags was a new product that had not been purchased, in addition to clothes, the victim was aware of the fact that there were other things such as clothes and food, etc. outside the clothes at the time, and there were no other things that the victim might have taken away in the vicinity of the place where the bank was used. The defendant confirmed the contents of the bank at his own discretion without finding the owner or confirming them to the surrounding persons, and sold them on the water, and the defendant had been subject to a disposition of suspension of indictment once for the same crime. The victim could have been aware that the damaged goods of this case had been in fact within the scope of dominance over the victim, and that the victim could have been aware that there was no intention to commit the theft.

Recognized.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant and the defense counsel is accepted.

arrow