beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one year and six months.
Of the facts charged in the instant case, the charge of intrusion shall be acquitted. This decision shall be acquitted.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
1. 절도 피고인은 2015. 3. 4. 14:00경 피고인이 잠시 거주하였던 김제시 D 아파트 203동 1##9호 피해자 E의 주거지에서 피해자가 없는 틈을 타 작은방 서랍장 안에 있던 35만원 상당의 로만손 시계 1점을 가져가 절취하였다.
2. On May 7, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 05:00 on May 7, 2015, the Defendant: (b) opened and intrudeed the 2nd G office window in Kim Jong-si, thereby cutting off the passbook in the name of the victim C; (c) the passbook in the name of the former bank; and (d) USD 70,000.
3. Crimes using cash withdrawal machines;
A. A. On May 7, 2015, around 05:55, the Defendant: (a) entered the stolen passbook in the form of cash withdrawal managed by the new cooperation, which is a victim established at the Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-dong Kim Jong-dong branch in Kim Jong-dong, Kim Jong-dong; (b) entered the password in the back of the passbook, and withdrawn KRW 5 million in cash; and (c) continued to have entered the information transferred to the agricultural bank account in the name of H used by the Defendant, which is the victim, and received the transfer.
In addition, around 00:56 on May 8, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn cash of three million won in the same manner in the same place as above.
As a result, the defendant stolen 8 million won in cash from a cash withdrawal machine managed by the victim's new cooperation, and obtained financial benefits equivalent to 2 million won from the victim by inputting information without authority into a computer and other information processing device.
B. Around May 9, 2015, the Defendant: (a) collected a stolen passbook as referred to in the foregoing paragraph (2) and withdrawn 310,000 won in cash after inserting the password as stated on the back of the passbook, on the cash withdrawal administered by the victim’s former bank located at the Kim Jong-dong Kim Kim Kim-dong branch; and (b) entered it in the cash withdrawal administered by the victim’s former bank.
Summary of Evidence
1. The defendant;