logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.06.26 2015노1066
준강도
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal (public prosecutor, mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles);

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant cannot be recognized as having committed larceny on the basis of (i) the method of operating the instant unmanned shop, which anyone can either pack up or drink in the field of crypted bond or fruit, and (ii) the victim’s statement that “the Defendant did not have any idea to receive money from the Defendant,” etc.

However, in order to inform the virtual party of the fact that it is obliged to pay the premium or excess, the instant virtual phone has a notice stating that “the money was put under the direction of the Bana,” and the victim’s above statement was merely an expression of intent to the effect that “the Defendant, who was drunk, sent the Defendant, who was drunk, rather than going through the platform to receive the excessive daily value of the small amount at the latest time, and tried to return to the Republic of Korea as soon as possible after arranging the edition,” and such circumstances do not constitute grounds for denying the Defendant’s criminal intent for larceny.

B. In full view of the following circumstances, Defendant’s criminal intent of larceny is sufficiently recognized.

1) At the time of the first report on 112, the victim clearly reported that “the person who gets stolen by food,” and clearly known the Defendant that the Defendant committed the act of theft. 2) A considerable number of hours was taken between the Defendant and the victim before the Defendant escaped. However, the Defendant did not complete the said payment that was merely a small amount of money, even in order to eliminate the potential of an issue that may occur in the future.

The defendant has no intention to pay the above amount from the beginning.

3 The Defendant alleged that he had reached the instant virtual phone for the fraud of capital reduction, but the Defendant’s assertion that he had reached the virtual phone for the fraud of capital reduction by drinking while drinking at the latest at night is not common sense in itself.

(c) Nevertheless.

arrow