logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2014.03.19 2014고정4
절도
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

At around 11:30 on September 1, 2013, the Defendant: (a) cut off the Victim B’s land at a fluort fluort adjacent to the mutual influort fluort, located in the middle-si Sinsan City, with one unit of CS Q250 verification color, which is equivalent to KRW 1,20,000.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. E statements;

1. Records of seizure, list of seizure and photographs of articles seized;

1. Application of statutes on certificates of report on use of two-wheeled automobiles;

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

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defendant's assertion is accepted and used temporarily, and if the owner returns it, he/she shall have the intention to return it, and the defendant did not have any intention to acquire it.

2. The expression of intent of unlawful acquisition necessary for the establishment of larceny refers to the intention to use or dispose of another person's property as his/her own property, and the intention to possess the economic interest of the latter permanently is not required. Even if he/she has deprived of another person's possession for the purpose of temporary use, it cannot be deemed that the use of the property itself is a temporary use in cases where the economic value of the latter is consumed to a considerable extent, or where he/she occupies it for a considerable period, or where he/she abandons it at a place different from its original place. Therefore, it shall not

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do1132, Jul. 12, 2012). According to the health stand, and the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant was unaware of who is the owner of the Orabab, and the Defendant was unaware of the identity of the owner of the Orabab, and the Defendant was aware of the repair of the Orababa, which was lost one year before he was assigned to E, and the police also.

arrow