logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2021.01.22 2020노1152
절도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the facts) presented by the Prosecutor as evidence, the lower court’s judgment that acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the facts, in consideration of the fact that the Defendant’s removal of a certain object in a box presumed to be a party who suffered damage, appears in the shape for gathering the garnish in a box presumed to be a party who suffered damage.

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. On February 1, 2020, around 16:35, the Defendant discovered one box of a selective ship in the victim C’s house located in Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the victim’s market value of which is KRW 59,600, and discovered one box of the instant facts charged, which was loaded with four bitk KF94, the victim’s market value, and stolen it.

B. The lower court determined that the part of the statement made by the investigative agency among the “report on internal investigation (verification of CCTV)” (Evidence No. 3) submitted by the prosecutor as evidence is inadmissible as it is not admitted by the originator, and there is no admissibility and value of evidence.

In light of the circumstances such as the fact that it is difficult to see the following: (a) whether the winners of the instant photograph are the same objects as the victim’s stack; (b) whether the Defendant opened the box; and (c) whether the contents of the box identified in the above photograph are the damaged goods; and (d) the Defendant collected the closed box, etc. at the victim’s residence with the consent of the victim; and (b) there is no evidence supporting the fact that the Defendant collected the closed box, etc. even at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, there is a possibility that the victim is not the victim’s stack; and (c) the victim’s stack was not the victim’s report during the time of delivery presumed to have been stolen at the time of delivery to the time of the victim’s stack’s report.

arrow