logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 해남지원 2017.06.15 2016고정127
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On October 15, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 16:00 on October 15, 2015, included the test 2 even the victim’s market price, the number of unclaimed clothes, and then stolen the Defendant, which was in possession of the former Jindo-gun E, Jindo-gun E.

The prosecution charged the Defendant with theft of “a total of approximately KRW 150,000 won,” but the evidence submitted by the prosecution alone does not specify the number or value of the brupt that was stolen by the Defendant. As such, the prosecution revised the facts charged as above.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The witness D, F, and G respective legal statements [the defendant and his defense counsel] asserts to the effect that there was no theft of the whole uniform owned by the victim as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the defendant.

However, F and G, the witness of the instant crime, are relatively consistent from the investigative agency to the instant court, to the background leading up to the witness of the Defendant’s crime, and the specific speech and behavior of the Defendant at the time of the instant case. The victim also made a detailed statement on the circumstances leading up to the recognition of the instant crime, and the victim or witness did not have any special circumstances leading up to the finding of the Defendant, each of the statements made by the victim or witness are credibility.

In each of the above witnesses or victims' statements, the following circumstances acknowledged by this Court's legitimate evidence examination, namely, ① the defendant himself/herself acknowledged that he/she had access to the aquaculture operated by the victim before or after the crime of this case; ② the defendant was engaged in the defendant's visit to the breeding hall with a view to harming the defendant's satisfe and helping the defendant to commit the crime of this case.

However, at the time, the defendant was operating a culture hall separate from the victim, and the victim's aquaculture room is cleaning and the return feed.

arrow