logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.07.10 2016노8619
횡령등
Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which acquitted the victim of the fact that the victim's statement claiming the misunderstanding of facts was relatively specific and consistent, and there was a record on the record corresponding thereto, etc., among the facts charged in this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the embezzlement of the facts charged in the instant case, although there was an intention to arbitrarily dispose of each mixed article as indicated in the lower judgment and to refuse to return the same, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. In light of the records, a thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts as to the act of violence, the court below's finding that the act of violence among the facts charged in this case constitutes a case where there is no proof of facts constituting the crime among the facts charged in this case is just and acceptable, and there is an error of law by

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, this part of the prosecutor's argument is without merit.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court regarding the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts as to embezzlement and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., (i) the victim’s malination, and (ii) the victim’s malination, thereby deducting the processed

The defendant, who had been in the situation of delivering the house, brought most of the mixed water to his parent's house, disposed of only the mixed water that cannot be kept due to the increase of the volume, ② The problem of the victim's abortion was not even about the problem of the victim's abortion, and continued to verify whether the defendant was actually abortion as alleged by the victim, and the victim's request for return of mixed water was made.

arrow