logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.10.20 2016고정1289
절도
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

While the Defendant divorcedd with the victim C, the Defendant transferred the victim a sports car to the victim.

Nevertheless, on June 16, 2016, the Defendant: (a) at a five-story parking lot from the five-story P34W, P34, the victim’s flag owned by the Defendant: (b) one Bat North Korea (P1,811,450), another 2T 2T (market price equivalent to 114,900) (market price) for event event; (c) two rabspets (market price equivalent to 97,500,230 won); (d) two rabs (market price equivalent to 160,230 won); (d) one Mobs (market price equivalent to 810,000 won); (d) one Kabscack (market price); (e) one 300,000 won (market price equivalent to 41,350 won); and (e) one 750,000,0000 won (market price) in cash with the market price equivalent to 300,5000,0000.

Accordingly, the defendant stolen the victim's property.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C and E;

1. The details of criminal suspects and Stockholm letters, victims, and letters;

1. Images taken by damaged objects onto the damaged vehicle;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a motor vehicle transfer certificate and a detailed statement of deposit money;

1. Article 329 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense and Article 329 of the choice of punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion under Article 32 (1) 3 and Article 25 (3) 3 of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Lawsuits to Dismiss Application for Compensation Order (the scope of compensation liability of the defendant is not clear, and thus, it is not reasonable to issue an order for compensation in the litigation proceedings of this case)

1. Part of the car freeboard;

A. The instant column also did not have a nominal trust relationship between the Defendant and the victim with respect to automobiles, and the Defendant possessed both ownership inside and outside the country.

Therefore, the defendant is the case.

arrow