logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.02.01 2016고단1933
상습야간건조물침입절도등
Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

[Criminal record] On September 17, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for habitual larceny at the Ulsan District Court on September 17, 2015 and completed the execution of the sentence at the Ulsan Detention House on November 14, 2015.

[Criminal facts]

1. On July 8, 2016, the Defendant: (a) intruded into E restaurant operated by the victim D in Yasan-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City), via an unlocked door; and (b) took place at the Kacter’s safe, with cash of KRW 50,000, the victim’s possession; (c) from March 8, 2016 to October 23:02 of the same year, the Defendant stolen totaling KRW 6,067,00 on a total of 21 occasions, such as the list of crimes, from around 02:0 on March 8, 2016 to around 23:02 of the same year.

2. Attempted larceny of buildings habitually intruded at night;

A. On September 24, 2016, around 03:30 on September 24, 2016, the Defendant: (a) intruded into H restaurant operated by the Victim F F in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City by the victim F; and (b) attempted to steal cash from a credit cooperative located in an unlocked kitchen; (c) but did not contain cash in the wind.

B. On September 24, 2016, at around 04:00, the Defendant committed the crime against the victim I, at K, operated by the victim I who was in the J of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 24, 2016, intruded the victim I into the warehouse of the billiard, and attempted to steal the goods into the warehouse of the billiard, and subsequently, attempted to steal the goods from the warehouse of the billiard, but the door leading from the warehouse of the billiard to the camera was cut down on the wind.

Accordingly, the defendant habitually stolen or attempted to steals the victims' property.

Summary of Evidence

1. That the Defendant’s partial statement in the court did not steals the victim I’s gold bar from K in the second period of the crime sight table No. 2

However, it was found that the victim I put in the credit cooperative after deducting the reflect for the purpose of the debate.

statement is made and the above gold paper is not set up in a place other than the treasury.

At the same time, I put the gold bar into a credit cooperative on August 4, 2016.

arrow