(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노3736 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2015.04.24 2014노3736

절도등

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is reversed.

Defendant

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

Defendant .

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding larceny on November 13, 2013, Defendant A1 of the mistake of facts: (a) the damaged goods are not owned by the victim; (b) the victim’s ownership was waived; and (c) the Defendant A does not have the intent of intentional larceny or illegal acquisition. In relation to larceny on November 15, 2013, no damaged goods were owned by the victim; (d) there was no intention of larceny and no intention of unlawful acquisition; and (e) Defendant A did not have the intent of larceny and no intention of unlawful acquisition. In relation to the destruction of property, Defendant A did not instruct the removal of CCTV to the removal business entity, such as J, etc. with respect to the destruction of property. Nevertheless, the lower court convicted the Defendant of all of the crime of this case. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, and thus, the sentence of unfair sentencing (6 months, suspension of execution, two years, community service, 120 hours) of the lower judgment is too unreasonable.

B. Prosecutor 1) The sentence of the judgment of the court below against Defendant A is too unhued and unfair. 2) Defendant B was integrated to commit a larceny with Defendant A as a joint will, and Defendant B moved to the execution of Defendant B’s own will by using the same person’s act. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted Defendant B of the facts charged as to Defendant B is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below and the court below on the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to each thief, Defendant A (A1) comprehensively admitted and investigated, the removal business entity collecting and selling damaged articles to the scrap metal business entity and the branch. It is recognized that the property value of damaged articles is recognized, and the victim attempted to prevent the removal of damaged articles, and according to this, the judgment of the court below that Defendant A committed each thief in this case is fully acceptable. Accordingly, Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to each thief in this case is without merit (However, November 15, 2013).

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.09.03 2019노2479

-대전지방법원 2019.02.14 2018노1277

-울산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019노1338

-인천지방법원 2014.06.13 2014노646

-광주지방법원 2019.10.30 2019노553