(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.09.17 2020고단1877

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) 서울북부지방법원 2020.09.17 2020고단1877

절도

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 17:00 on May 3, 2020, the Defendant, at the convenience store located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, stolen the food amounting to KRW 7,900 in total, including one hambber, which is the victim E-owned market value of KRW 2,800.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Written statements of D;

1. Investigation report (Attachment of photographs of damaged articles);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on CCTV images with a receipt (original, copy) C convenience store;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant's defense counsel in determining the defendant's defense counsel's assertion of provisional payment order under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act asserts that the defendant was in a state of mental disorder due to editing disorder at the time of the crime in this case

According to the records, even though the defendant was deemed to have repeated hospitalization and pharmacologic treatment from around 1997 as a editing mental disorder, in light of the contents of the crime in this case, the defendant's behavior before and after the crime in this case, and the defendant's statement on the crime, etc., the defendant did not have the ability to discern things or make decisions due to the above symptoms at the time of the crime in this case

It does not seem to be in a state or weak.

Therefore, the above argument is not accepted.

The defendant of the reason for sentencing has been repeating the same kind of crime for recent years, and re-offending during the suspended execution period.

Although the possibility of recidivism cannot be ruled out, the crime of this case is a crime committed by the defendant after being released from the prison after being sentenced to a suspended sentence, and after being released from the prison, the defendant's every system, the guardian, expresses his/her intention to protect and supervise the defendant, and the defendant also expresses his/her intention not to repeat the crime against the mistake.

The defendant is suffering from mental illness.

참조조문

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.06.12 2015노1485

-부산지방법원 2015.09.18 2015고합417

-인천지방법원 2015.10.15 2015고단4651

-대구지방법원 2015.04.10 2014노4658

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.13 2014노1182