(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고합341

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.01.19 2016고합341

특수강도미수

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of three years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On November 3, 2016, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for six months for property damage at the Seoul Eastern District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on November 11, 2016.

On August 30, 2016, around 01:30 on August 30, 2016, the Defendant was boarding the victim C (54 tax) D taxi in front of the “Gangll” located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, about 465, and on the same day at around 02:10, in front of the Defendant’s house located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul.

In order to close the door by getting off the taxi without paying 16,200 won or more for money.

Accordingly, the Defendant, who prevents the victim from closing his door with the Defendant, was arrested and attempted to commit an attempted crime at the police station who was dispatched after receiving a report from the victim, with excessive amount of money (9cm in length) and excessive amount of money (9cm in length) that is a deadly weapon in his house, and with the victim’s face at the time of the victim’s face, and led the victim to suppress the victim’s resistance, and then forced the victim to waive his claim for taxi fee, thereby avoiding the payment.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness C;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of partially the police officers of the accused;

1. Photographss, records of seizure and list of seizure, and receipts;

1. Previous conviction: Determination of the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel as a result of inquiry into criminal history data

1. The summary of the argument was that the Defendant did not intend to avoid paying the taxi fee because the Defendant asked the mother at home to pay the taxi fee due to the absence of the taxi fee, and the Defendant did not intend to avoid paying the taxi fee. Even after the collision with the police, the Defendant did not have the intention of robbery since the Defendant did not have the intention to commit robbery, since the Defendant continued to pay the taxi fee with the victim even after the collision with the police

2. The judgment of this Court is duly adopted and examined by this Court.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.08.27 2014고합159

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2017.10.27 2017고단295

-울산지방법원 2016.01.15 2015고합350

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2015.10.21 2015고단578

-청주지방법원 2017.10.25 2016고단2556