logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.10.12 2020노77
절도
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant was aware of the damage from the mobile phone as his/her own, and there was no intention of larceny or illegal acquisition.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts.

2. Determination

A. A. Around April 9, 2019, the Defendant discovered one mobile phone unit in the 1,200,000 Aphone8 mobile phone unit in the lower seat of the said taxi and stolen it. Around April 03:24, 2019, the Defendant discovered one mobile phone unit in the 1,200,000 won at the market price offered by the victim C (n, 40 years of age) in the vicinity of the YY in Seongbukdong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that it was difficult to view that there was no intention on the ground that he acquired another person’s mobile phone while under the influence of alcohol, and that the victim made a vindication that the Defendant was unable to understand even though the victim made several calls on his own mobile phone, and that the mobile phone was not activated.

C. The judgment of this court 1) In a criminal trial, criminal facts ought to be established 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 to have the aforementioned conviction, even if there is suspicion of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201; 2012Do3722, Sept. 26, 2013). 2) The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted by the court below and duly examined by the court below, i.e.,, the defendant was unaware of having caused damage to mobile phones consistently from the investigation process.

arrow