(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.09.17 2015고단1010

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.09.17 2015고단1010

특수절도등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant provided labor at a construction site in accordance with the direction of the victim C, and did not receive any compensation therefor, with the intent to steals the tools owned by the victim.

1. On May 28, 2015, the Defendant: (a) committed theft by carrying 150,000 won of the market price of the tools owned by the victim C, which was located between the victim C’s office stacks in Ansan-si, A around the morning-si; and (b) committed theft.

2. The Defendant, along with E who provided labor to the victim, conspiredd to steals the victim’s tools as he/she provided, at the same place as before June 16, 2015, at the same time as before and after, on June 16, 2015, E opened an office door with the key in his/her custody, and the Defendant, entering the office, opened two high-speed stackers, one stacker, and one stacker, which were kept there, with the total market value of the tools owned by the victim, including one stacker and one stacker, while driving this vehicle.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property jointly with E.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The first written statement made to C at the police station;

1. C’s statement (No. 4);

1. Reports on internal investigation and investigation reports (on-site CCTVs);

1. CCTV-cap photographs (No. 7), a map around the scene, and a CCTV closure photographs around the scene (No. 20 p.m.);

1. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion on seizure records, seizure lists, photographs (victims) and the Defendant and the defense counsel’s defense counsel’s assertion are acknowledged. However, the Defendant and the defense counsel were found to have committed the larceny, upon receiving a request from E to “absing to work” with respect to the special larceny crime, they did not have a competitive relationship with E or unlawful acquisition intent.

The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court in relation to the act of the Defendant and E, as stated in the crime-related Paragraph 2, is especially a glare photograph of CCTV at the scene of crime.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2016.12.08 2015고단2000

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.12.23 2020고단468

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.20 2020고합381

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2015.10.15 2015고단819

-서울남부지방법원 2013.08.12 2012고단4473