beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten months.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
"2014 Highest 4063"
1. On October 7, 2014, the Defendant and Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “Co-Defendant C”)’s co-defendanted the Defendant and Co-Defendant C (hereinafter “Co-Defendant”)’s co-defendanted into the F factory operated by the victim E in Socheon-si, Ma, and C, entering the above factory, have 5 wires covering the total market value of KRW 1,280,00,000, which is the victim’s ownership. From outside the network, the Defendant moved the above wire to a G 1 ton truck with a prior waiting five lines, and was discovered by the victim’s employees.
As a result, the defendant and C did not commit a theft of the victim's property and did not commit an attempted crime.
2. On October 7, 2014, the Defendant was driving the truck at approximately 15 meters under the influence of alcohol content of 0.198% while he stolen electric wires, as described in paragraph (1), on the front of F in Macheon-si D around October 18, 2014.
Around June 10, 2013, the Defendant made a false statement to the victim I at H of Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-gu, Seoul, stating that “The Defendant will bring 350 new type plates to the new type plates by 200 won per page, and the new type plates will bring 400 won per opening.”
However, the defendant did not have the intention or ability to change from the appearance to the new type.
The Defendant, as above, by deceiving the victim as above, received 478 severe 95,600 won in total from the victim and received a delivery of 478 false board.
"2015 Highest 985"
1. The Defendant in violation of the Road Traffic Act is a person engaged in G Poter driving duties.
On December 15, 2014, at around 14:00, the Defendant got off the above cargo vehicles on the two-lane roads adjacent to the Sincheon-si Incheon Metropolitan City Macheon-si Macheon-si, and even though the above driver had a duty of care to care in advance to prevent accidents by returning back to the back and driving the vehicle, the Defendant’s negligence, which neglected such duty of care, oppose the above cargo partitions.