본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
광주지방법원 2020.02.12 2020고단9

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.


Punishment of the crime

The defendant knew that the victim B, working in the same restaurant, was in custody of cash in the usual harassment, and tried to steals the victim's residence.

On December 19, 2019, at around 15:30 on December 19, 2019, the Defendant: (a) laid down the string of the gate, which was corrected in Yong-gun C; (b) laid down the string of the strings; (c) laid down the strings; and (d) laid down the 20 million cash, which is the ownership of the victim, which was contained in the string of the string of the string of the string of the strings.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the victim's residence and stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (the details, etc. of seizure of stolen articles stolen by a suspect);

1. Records of seizure and the list of seizure;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as fingerprint identification results, scene of storage of damaged articles, and photographs of seized articles;

1. Relevant Article 329 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 329 of the Criminal Act, Article 319 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of imprisonment, respectively;

1. Among concurrent crimes, the reason for sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is that the defendant repents and reflects the defendant's mistake, and the fact that all the stolen cash has been returned to the victim is favorable to the defendant.

However, the case where the defendant invaded upon the victim's house and stolen the cash amount of KRW 20 million owned by the victim, and the amount of damage is the maximum amount, and the defendant keeps the stolen cash in the restaurant warehouse that he works for the defendant, and the cash was returned to the victim as a result of the restaurant operator's discovery of the stolen cash and reporting to the police, and did not reach an agreement with the victim. The victim still wishes to punish the defendant. During the investigation process, the defendant stated that the first stolen cash was abandoned in the dry field.