beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.
The seized free electricity (No. 2) shall be returned to the victim AR.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On February 14, 2014, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for larceny, etc. at the Seoul Southern District Court and appealed, and is still pending in the appellate trial.
1. On December 11, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 18:35 on December 11, 2013, at the W Ba point in the operation of the Victim V located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government U, the Defendant carried one son and son in the market price, which is the victim’s possession on the display stand.
2. On December 11, 2013, at around 22:00, the Defendant boarded the victim ATR operated in front of the Yangcheon-gu Seoul AS apartment, Yangcheon-gu Seoul, with one call terminal at the market price, which is the victim owned by the victim in the above taxi.
3. On December 12, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 14:23, 2013, at the AW mobile phone sales store operated by the victim AV in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim’s attention was neglected; (b) carried one cell phone with the victim’s market value equivalent to KRW 814,000, the victim’s ownership at that location.
Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victims' property.
Summary of Evidence
1. Defendant's legal statement;
1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;
1. AV and AR's written statements;
1. The police seizure record and the list of seizure;
1. CCTV closure photographs and each video CD;
1. The defense counsel asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental and physical disability by drinking at the time of each of the crimes in this case.
According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, even though the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, considering all the circumstances such as the content of the crime and the defendant's behavior before and after the crime, it cannot be seen that the defendant was under the influence of alcohol at the time of each of the crimes in this case, and thus, the above argument is rejected.
Application of Statutes
1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of imprisonment.