logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.01.10 2018고정675
절도
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged is between 12:49 and 12:49 on the same day from January 28, 2018 to 12:49 on the same day, and is located in Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si B. The victim D (70 years of age) in the double floor toilets for male toilets in the main hospital, the victim D (70 years of age) was in a practical way, and discovered Samsung juglus mobile phones of an amount equivalent to 990,000 won between the market value, and used the cres that are irrelevant to the surrounding areas.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Defendant stolen the instant mobile phone only with the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The Defendant consistently stated from investigative agencies to this court that the victim’s cellular phone has no cross-compact.

The victim stated that his/her mobile phone has been in the screen of the toilet of this case, but the time from the toilet of this case is based on the time of CCTV from January 28, 2018.

It is the time that he/she finds a mobile phone and re-enters the toilet into the toilet, which is 12:45:16 on the same day.

Therefore, the possibility that the victim lost his mobile phone at its time and the victim had lost his mobile phone at another place than the toilet of this case cannot be ruled out in light of the fact that it is between the time and the scene of the instant toilet site.

The Defendant at the time of committing the instant crime.

arrow