(영문) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노8550 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2018.04.27 2017노8550

절도등

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to the crime of larceny by mistake of fact, the defendant cannot be found to have obtained an unlawful intent to obtain a lightlight from the defendant.

Defendant, from the investigative agency to the court below, failed to take a luminous light away from the floor;

In full view of the facts stated, the number of luminous vests at the time is worn out, and is deemed to have been abandoned even if they are accumulated, and the Defendant is also a person working in the environment, and the Defendant is able to leave his clothes in collecting clothes because it is impossible to leave the wastes into the floor, and the Defendant does not have any luminous vest, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is a string in order to collect them with the knowledge that the luminous vest has been abandoned, and to collect them.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intention to obtain unjust enrichment with respect to larceny, on the following grounds, and convicted the Defendant of the charges concerning larceny.

A) The Defendant alleged to the effect that there was no intention of illegal acquisition because he thought that the above luminous ray was abandoned and caused it. However, according to the records, the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted in full view of the following circumstances: (a) the victim C, who cleaned the luminous ray in the state of cleaning the luminous ray, was discharged from the luminous ray above the cleaning gate to another place; (b) the Defendant may recognize the facts by putting the luminous ray of the victim C who was over the course of cleaning the luminous ray; and (c) the Defendant’s assertion is not objectively viewed as a state of leaving the luminous ray.

B) The Defendant asserts to the effect that there was no intention to obtain unlawful diversity, thereby bringing the above luminous divers to house and inserting the above luminous divers in collecting one’s front clothes.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2017.11.10 2017고정281

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.18 2017노1982

-서울서부지방법원 2017.11.24 2017고정467

-부산지방법원 2017.04.28 2016노3911

-대전지방법원 2018.11.23 2018노899