(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.31 2017노2000

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.31 2017노2000

절도

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant would bring one mobile phone on the cash withdrawal period at a point in the territory of the corporate bank in order to find the main owner at the time, and would not bring about the intent of illegal acquisition.

2. Determination

A. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the allegation in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence adopted and examined by the lower court, and convicted the Defendant of the facts charged.

(1) The Defendant was in custody of a victim, who reported the victim’s cell phone, located far from the floor of the cash withdrawal machine of an enterprise bank, to find the main phone.

However, according to CCTV images, the defendant collected a portable phone on the cash withdrawal machine and immediately went out of the above place.

② After the investigation began, the Defendant denied the fact that he brought a portable phone, and returned the CCTV image to him after being notified of the CCTV.

The personal telephone was separated from the main body and the exhaustr, and the defendant did not return the window-fluor telephone cases.

B. The reasoning of the judgment of the court below is as follows: (a) the victim confirmed that he brought one mobile phone on the cash withdrawal machine through CCTV images installed in the cash withdrawal machine at a point in the corporate bank located in the bank, and confirmed the fact that the victim contacted the defendant through the corporate bank; (b) reported the fact of damage to the police station on the ground that the defendant did not bring about his personal phone; and (c) the defendant did not deny the fact that the police officer visited his domicile did not bring about his personal phone; and (d) the defendant did not deny the fact that the police officer visited his domicile was taken at the time of CCTV; and (e) it would be reasonable to bring him to his personal phone after hearing the explanation that the CCTV was taken.

recognized as such.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.07.13 2017고정478

-광주지방법원 2016.05.18 2016고정455

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.10 2016노4248

-수원지방법원 2018.05.17 2018고정211

-수원지방법원 2016.08.25 2015고정2801