(영문) 창원지방법원 2014.12.04 2014노1360 | 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) 창원지방법원 2014.12.04 2014노1360

절도

Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant asserts that the judgment of the court below that the defendant committed a theft by citing the equipment owned by the victim was erroneous and adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment, even though he did not return the equipment used by himself to the head of the tools, and did not return the stolen equipment owned by the victim.

B. The Defendant asserts that the lower court’s punishment (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. ex officio determination of authority: (a) the prosecutor applied for the amendment of a bill of amendment to the indictment with the withdrawal of “two Eas” among the facts charged at the trial court; and (b) the subject of this court’s permission was changed by this court; (c) the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, even if there are such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of determining the changed facts charged, and this is examined in

B. On July 20, 2012, the Defendant, at around 16:00, was guilty of the facts charged prior to the alteration, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged prior to the alteration, by taking advantage of the gaps in the E-site office located in Da, Jin-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, in which the surveillance of the victim F (the age of 43) was neglected, and by taking advantage of the gap in the surveillance of the victim F (the age of 43), the equipment owned by the victim, the sum of KRW 50,000,000, and KRW 500,000.

3) In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense should be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge not to have any reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof does not sufficiently reach the degree of confiscing such conviction, even if the defendant’s assertion or defense is contradictory or uncomponed, and there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s non-confiscence.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2014.06.13 2013고정475

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.23 2016노4905

-울산지방법원 2020.10.29 2019노1290

-제주지방법원 2013.08.29 2013노10

-인천지방법원 2013.05.10 2013노221