logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.10.18 2017노2708
절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, on June 2013, did not instruct G or H to use construction materials, such as the victim E’s oil pumps, pipes, spons, presses, news reports, and copons, which were located at the scene of a new house located in the building site located in the Nam-gun, Nam-gun, the Defendant was guilty of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence, and one hundred and sixty hours of community service) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined in the lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of fact: ① Construction materials owned by the victim were operated by the Defendant at a construction site where the first Defendant was a new house owned by the Defendant

F. A former employee of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”).

G and H used for the new factory construction of the company of this case. ② G was the chief of the company of this case at the time of the original trial

H brought the above construction materials owned by the victim to H, and H changed the way to go to G as it is well aware of the way, thereby making it possible for him to use the construction materials owned by the victim.

In light of the fact that the court below stated, (3) although there is no accurate memory as to whom direction was given at the court below, it is clear to bring the construction materials owned by the victim to G, etc. along with G, and in the process of performing the business of the company of this case, H et al., upon the defendant's instruction to H et al., conducted the business with other employees and stated that H et al. could not be conducted concurrently by the employees of the company without the defendant's instruction. In light of the above, the defendant is the victim E who was in the new housing construction site located at the Nam-gun, Nam or H around June 2013.

arrow