(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.29 2016노140 | 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) 수원지방법원 2016.06.29 2016노140

절도

Text

The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of committing a crime by mistake of facts (as to the part not guilty in the judgment below), the head of the CCTV where the Defendant was aware of the part of the victim’s inner part of the CCTV, and it is difficult to find out a trace of other people than the Defendant’s inner part of the victim’s inner part.

While the defendant could not accurately state his identity after the crime, the victim is consistently making statements about the damaged goods.

Therefore, as long as the defendant recognized that he stolens the victim's domination, he stolen the cell phone and cash KRW 3 million, which is the content of the domination.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged, there is an error of mistake in fact.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (a sum of KRW 300,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The lower court, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, stolen a cash of three million won and a mobile phone claimed by the Defendant, based on the facts stated in its reasoning, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor.

Since it is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged as not guilty because there is no proof of crime.

Examining the judgment of the court below closely with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts in the judgment of the court below as alleged by the

It does not appear.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserted that he had no intention to commit the larceny as to the part of the larceny, and denied the crime.

However, the Defendant was convicted of the larceny part, and did not appeal it.

A theft was immediately returned to the victim immediately after the crime.

The Defendant is still young at the early 20th century and has no record of crime prior to the instant crime.

In addition, it shall be equivalent to KRW 3 million in cash and KRW 200,000 in the market.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017노5946

-부산지방법원 2020.05.22 2019노2936

-청주지방법원 2016.07.15 2016노516

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2016.07.07 2016고단481

-대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2015노1464