(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015노3383 | 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 2015.11.18 2015노3383

야간주거침입절도

Text

Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles on TV from the Defendant’s own name made a deposit without a passbook and purchased it with his own money, and is owned by the Defendant, not by the victim. Even if the victim was owned, the Defendant was aware of the said TV as owned by himself, and the Defendant did not have an intent to commit a theft. 2) The sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. As to the acquittal portion of the prosecutor (the fact-finding person), the court below found the defendant stolen TV, but found the defendant not guilty of other goods which have ceased from the same point of view on the same day. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles, we first examine the Defendant’s assertion that there was ownership of the TV of this case.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined at the court below and the court below, namely, ① the TV of this case was ordered by the victim's ID and delivered to the victim's office, ② the service contractor of the Internet and wire TV was identified as the defendant, but it was merely a contract under the defendant's name while the victim was identified as being unable to enter into a contract, which was merely a contract under the defendant's name, and it was merely a contract under the defendant's name during the process of finding out the party entitled to enter into the contract. Since the victim was to bear the full amount of the service, the actual user of the service should also be deemed the victim, ③ the defendant directly remitted the purchase price of the TV of this case, but the purchase price is 70,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.06.07 2017노313

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2017.02.28 2016고정1302

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.01.19 2016고정155

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나23854

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.22 2014고단3523