logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.05.22 2014고단99
특수절도
Text

The sentence of each sentence shall be suspended against the Defendants.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 23:20 on January 11, 2014, the Defendants: (a) used a gap between the victim F (n, 21 years of age), the victim G (n, 21 years of age), and the victim G (n, 21 years of age) who performed drinking together through Y in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and used a toilet in a gap between the victim’s G by leaving the toilet in a cresh between them; (b) Defendant A used a cresh of the victim’s market price equivalent to 200,000 won (including cash 40,00 won, modern card 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2000 won of the company bank), thereby concealing the test color of the victim’s “cocococo” in an amount equivalent to 400,000 won of the market price owned by the victim.

As a result, the defendants stolen the victims' property together.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement of the police statement related to F and G;

1. A written statement of G and F;

1. Photographs of a damaged household;

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes on CCTV-TV Image Data;

1. Article 331 (2) and (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. Article 53 and Article 55 (1) 3 of the Criminal Act for discretionary mitigation;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 59(1) of the Criminal Code of the Suspension of Sentence (the period of suspension of sentence: 6 months for each sentence) include the confessions of and reflects against the defendants, the victims are influences to commit any contingent crimes in the toilet when they were in company with the victims, and the damage is relatively minor, and part of the damage was returned to the victims, Defendant A did not have any criminal record other than once prior to the violation of the Road Traffic Act, Defendant B was the first offender, and other various sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of the instant case such as the age of the defendants.

arrow