logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2017.07.05 2016노759
절도
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) discovered a mobile phone after ten minutes have elapsed since the victim left the scene; and (b) was unaware of whether the mobile phone was the victim at the time when the victim acquired the mobile phone.

The Defendant submitted a written reason for appeal separate from the written reason for appeal submitted by his/her defense counsel, and the reason for appeal is the same, and it is alleged that the relevant mobile phone, which is not a mere reason for appeal, has been occupied, or at least the relevant mobile phone has been recognized as an object of possession, so that it can be determined by deeming it as a assertion of mistake that may affect the judgment

In addition, the defendant did not have any intention to commit a theft or illegal acquisition because he had a cell phone at the time of drinking, and he thought that he would return a cell phone after being subject to death after being sentenced to it, so there is no intention to commit a theft or illegal acquisition.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case on the premise that the intention of unlawful acquisition or the intention of theft is recognized, is just and did not err by misapprehending the facts of the lower judgment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(1) Since the defendant appears to have acquired a mobile phone when the victim's vehicle that is not the victim who has taken a mobile phone ten minutes after leaving the victim, is deemed to have taken the mobile phone immediately next to the victim, the possession of the relevant mobile phone at the time of theft is in a state of completely leaving

shall not be deemed to exist.

(2) The defendant has been able to immediately notify the victim of the fact that he/she has big phone.

arrow