logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.01.10 2018고정1163
점유이탈물횡령
Text

The defendant is innocent.

Reasons

1. Around 14:44 on August 2018, 2018, the Defendant, while settling the parking fees at the 4th floor parking fee settlement period of the C board intersection located in Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, Sungnam-si, the victim D, who settled the parking fees prior to the Defendant, was placed in the settlement period, and did not take necessary procedures, such as acquiring one credit card on the part of the victim and returning it to the victim, and embezzled the Defendant’s thought he/she had.

2. Determination

A. The burden of proving the facts charged in a criminal trial is to be borne by the public prosecutor, and the conviction of guilt is to be based on the evidence of probative value, which makes a judge sure that the facts charged are true enough to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt. Therefore, if there is no such evidence, even if there is a doubt that the defendant is guilty, it cannot be determined with the benefit of the defendant.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Do9633 Decided November 11, 2010, etc.). B.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, it is difficult to acknowledge that the defendant left the instant credit card solely by the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

On August 14, 2018, the Defendant, at the time of interrogation of the police, found the credit card in this case at the unmanned settlement room, and stated that the credit card was deducted and left the parking lot again before the settlement deadline. However, it appears that the Defendant, after around nine (9) days of the occurrence of the instant case, stated the process of setting up the card above the settlement deadline as partial mistake.

Accordingly, the police officer, unlike the statement of the above defendant, stated that the defendant was in a parking lot because he did not have CCTV, has a credit card, but the defendant has a relatively consistent card on the settlement date.

arrow