logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.12.14 2017노1344
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the time when the victim E-owned market value equivalent to KRW 6 million (hereinafter “the gold penalty in this case”) was placed in the vicinity of the electric telegram is less than three hours; and (b) the gold penalty in this case is more than 60 km but not more than 60 km and has a monetary value to a certain extent.

The Defendant: (a) was the Defendant: (b) was carrying the gold of this case into the handle, resulting in the arbling of the arbitra; (c)

However, there is no evidence to prove the defendant's assertion.

Even if two persons attempted the defendant, the defendant was misled that he had the right to collect the penalty of this case, and the punishment of this case was abandoned.

It is difficult to see it.

According to the above circumstances, at the time of the instant case, at least there was a willful negligence on the thief crime against the Defendant.

may be appointed by a person.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that the intention of larceny cannot be recognized, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to larceny, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Around July 11, 2016, the Defendant: (a) prepared the instant gold model attached to the Victim E (V) on the street in front of the “D” located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Yeongdeungpo-gu; (b) around July 11, 2016, the Defendant stolen the instant gold model, being loaded in hand, and then loaded it in hand.

3. Determination

A. According to the following circumstances duly admitted and examined evidence, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the ground that (i) the Defendant misperception of the punishment of this case as property owned by another person as property, and (ii) the Defendant did not recognize that he was property owned by another person.

① The gold penalty of this case was left neglected for a considerable period of time on the side of the Mandole of the sewage hole adjacent to the uribotot, as well as where the gold penalty of this case was used for a long time in appearance, and thus has a considerable portion of the green light.

arrow