logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 김천지원 2020.01.07 2019고정215
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 11, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around 09:21, around 09:21, in a smoking place located in the front of the “C Hospital” located in the Gyeong-si, Chungcheongnam-si; (b) the victim D(the age of 61) took advantage of the gaps in the string place, thereby citing KRW 980,000 in cash located in Samsung 5 mobile phones No. 5 mobile phones and the above mobile phone case, which is the victim’s market value.

As a result, the Defendant stolen the property equivalent to the total market value of KRW 1,895,00,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. In the investigation report (as to the attachment of CCTV photographs on the part of a suspect’s criminal act), the defendant asserts that the cash located in the aforementioned mobile phone case that he stolen is only 114,000 won. However, as above, the victim’s statement on the stolen amount of cash is almost consistent and is very detailed (Evidence Records 8, 51, 110 pages, and Chapter 1,000 won closed). The other parts are identical.

() Considering the fact that the victim appears to have not been holding a large amount of cash as above for the payment of discharge expenses to the spouse’s hospital (Evidence No. 6,49,110 pages), it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant stolen cash of KRW 915,00,00 as stated in the above criminal facts. The above argument is groundless). The application of the law is without merit.

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act Article 334(1) recognizes the defendant as a substitute for the crime.

However, considering the fact that there was a history of punishment several times for the same property crime, the victim gave the defendant an opportunity to contact immediately after committing the crime, but the defendant was neglected and escaped, and the defendant seems to have no intention or effort to recover damage.

arrow