beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On March 14, 2017, at around 08:00, the Defendant excavated pine trees (return) with approximately 50 years of market value equivalent to KRW 20 million, which were owned by the D Saemaeul Association, and transported them to one of five tons of cargo and transported them to one’s house.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Statement made by the police for E;
1. A protocol of seizure and a list of seizure;
1. 8 copies of the entire certificate, estimates, and field photographs of the registered matter (the Defendant and his defense counsel acknowledged the fact that the Defendant stolen the damaged pine tree 1, but the market value cannot be recognized as KRW 20 million or is merely about KRW 5 million.
However, according to the written estimate for 1 gom of damaged pine trees, the market price is KRW 20 million, and no other circumstance exists to suspect the credibility of the said written estimate.
In addition, there is no objective data that can be seen that the market price of damaged pine 1g dust is 5 million won or more.
Defendant and defense counsel cannot be accepted.
Application of Statutes
1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of punishment, and the choice of fines;
2. Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse.
3. The reason for the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (negative) of the Criminal Procedure Act in the instant case is that the Defendant stolened the victim’s pine trees, and the nature of the instant crime is not somewhat weak in light of the background, method, and scale of damage, etc.
The defendant did not receive a letter from the injured party.
The defendant has the same criminal history.
[The favorable circumstances] The Defendant appears to be against the view of the instant crime as a substitute for it.
The damage itself seems to have been restored due to the defendant's re-afforestation of damaged pine trees in the original place, and the defendant is normally damaged pine trees in the future.