(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.06.18 2020노435 | 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) 인천지방법원 2020.06.18 2020노435

특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)

Text

All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The punishment sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (two years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Regarding the theft of cash owned by the victim B of mistake of facts, according to CCTV for method CCTV, it is found that the Defendant invaded into the restaurant for the victim’s operation and stolen the cash of the victim by taking account of the following: (a) it is confirmed that the Defendant changed the restaurant for the victim’s operation; and (b) it was entered the alley side of the restaurant, the opposite direction to the dwelling place; and (c) it was found in the crime scene, and the Defendant was found guilty at the time of the larceny crime on September 14, 2019, which was found guilty; and (d) it was found that the Defendant worn the wall at the time of the larceny crime as stated in this part of the facts charged, and thus, was found that the Defendant stolen the victim’s cash by intrusion into the restaurant for the victim’s operation. (b) The above

2. Determination

A. 1 The lower court determined the Prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim was from September 14, 2019 to September 15:00.

9. The fact that between 08:00 and 16: (a) stated that the Defendant suffered the same damage as the stated in this part of the facts charged; (b) the CCTV for crime prevention was used before and after the time when the Defendant entered the said restaurant (round September 16, 2019: 02:27); and (c) the Defendant’s purchase of goods at around 03:28 on the same day by finding the Defendant’s residential convenience points near the restaurant; (d) under CCTV, the CCTV was taken; (e) the Defendant could have access to the said restaurant if the Defendant exceeded the hurri height from the runway that entered the restaurant after the above restaurant; (e) the latter part of the restaurant was closed by putting the hurri door in a way of confirming the damage; (e) the Defendant committed several offenses of larceny for correction at the time of confirming the damage.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.20 2017노2602

-전주지방법원 2013.09.11 2013고정180

-수원지방법원 2013.12.05 2013노3485

-서울남부지방법원 2019.04.23 2018가단15912

-인천지방법원 2019.10.16 2019나51447