logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2017.05.11 2016고단3456
특수절도
Text

Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the defendants are above one year from the date when this judgment became final.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the director of “D” and Defendant B is the employee of “D”.

The Defendants supplied cremations, money storages, etc. to the “E” in “D”, but did not receive the price, and did not arbitrarily collect the goods that were supplied by the Defendants, and did so in writing.

On March 22, 2016, at around 15:00, the Defendants found “E” on the first floor of the F Commercial Building underground of Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and then did not find any other goods, and the Defendants entered the first floor warehouse of the underground floor where the victim G did not have any other goods, and then entered the warehouse of the same 1.50,000 won at the market price where the victim G was kept, one set of 1.50,000 won at the night prior to the market price of 3.50,000 won at the market price, two bags with 90,000 won at the market price, one bags with 220,000,000 won at the market price, and one 1.77,000,000,000 won at the market price, and 1.77,000,000 won at the market price.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victim's property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the Defendants’ legal statements

1. Each statement of G and H;

1. Investigation reports (referring to submission of a list of damaged articles by a victim);

1. The aforementioned criminal facts are denied to the effect that the Defendants’ photograph of seized articles [the Defendants and their defense counsel did not agree to steal the victim’s articles together, and Defendant A alone stolen the above articles, and Defendant B merely did not move the above articles according to Defendant A’s order by a private person in the direct position.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the above evidence, the above assertion by the Defendants and the defense counsel is without merit.

① The Defendants had different business territory that they manage while working in the same company, and committed the instant crime.

arrow