logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.04.27 2016고단662
장물취득
Text

Defendant

A Imprisonment for 10 months, Defendant B’s imprisonment for 6 months, Defendant C and E are punished by a fine of 50,000 won, and Defendant D.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. Defendants A and B were aware of their intent to gain economic benefits by purchasing from taxi articles with their taxi articles and resale them. Defendants B were to play a role in purchasing and purchasing stolen mobile phones from taxi articles directly for business purpose; Defendant A was to play a role in collecting and selling mobile phones purchased by Defendant B and selling them to mobile phone buyers.

around 02:00 on February 18, 2016, Defendant B purchased 5,000 won of the price knowing that the market price of the victim G owned by the victim G that he/she temporarily acquired from his/her non-string taxi articles in his/her name at KRW 600,00,000, in the middle-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seocheon-dong, Daejeon. Defendant A acquired the fluoral phone in a way that he/she collected the fluoral phone from Defendant B by acquiring the fluoral phone at that time.

In addition, from February 23, 2016 to February 23, 2016, the Defendants purchased 13 mobile phones of 9,260,000 won in total and purchased 265,000 won in comparison with the market price as stated in the list of crimes in the attached Table.

2. On February 13, 2016, at around 15:50, the Defendant discovered a fluent cell phone in the galthal juth of S6 at the market price of 600,000 won, which was set up in the taxi by the victim H, who was boarding a taxi driven by the Defendant in front of the apartment building of Samsungdong-dong, Daejeon-dong, Samsungdong-dong, Daejeon, and found all of them after having laid off.

Defendant 1 did not take necessary procedures such as returning the above acquired property to the victim, but did so.

Accordingly, the defendant embezzled the property that has been separated from the possession of the victim.

3. Defendant D’s market price is equivalent to KRW 920,000,000, which the victim I, who gotten on a taxi that he gets on the front of the Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, about February 23, 2016.

arrow