logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016고정1824
절도
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

On October 25, 2015, the Defendant, at the Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government and the second floor Dhop on October 25, 2015, stolen the Defendant’s 300,000 won, resident registration certificates, driving licenses, physical card (national bank, foreign exchange bank, and cell phone exhauster A (hereinafter “instant land A”) in cash opened by the victim E on the table.

Provided, That first of all, evidence to support the facts charged is the victim E's statement, and the victim was present with E and the defendant before that time.

F’s statement, CCTV video CDs (e.g., the images recorded therein).

However, the following circumstances revealed based on the above evidence, namely, ① E and F, without viewing the theft pages of the Defendant, committed the Defendant’s theft on the basis of the circumstances at the time (i.e., the position of each party, the location where the instant landmark was attached) and only the video recorded in the said CD, ② E became aware of the fact that there was no wall wall at the site of this case, and became aware of it in the taxi after returning to the taxi. ③ According to the above video, according to the above images, the Defendant was classified as the land wall of this case, but it was classified as the material of the wall of this case (i.e., the mother part only) revealed by E., the materials of the wall of this case.

(B) When considering the contents or contents (as stated in the facts charged), the above articles (which seems to be luminous in a broad area and considerably less than ordinary land bags) are highly likely to be used as other articles such as mobile phones, etc. (On the other hand, according to the 17th page of the investigation record, E appears to have been holding a photograph of the instant landets, which is not submitted as evidence). (4) If the above articles were to be walled and brought by the Defendant, they were stolen in the presence of E, as confirmed in the above images, and it appears difficult to do so. (5) It appears to be the above.

arrow