(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.10.18 2019고단2922

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) 대전지방법원 2019.10.18 2019고단2922

절도등

Text

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 5, 2018, the Defendant sentenced the Daejeon District Court to one year of imprisonment with labor for the crime of interference with business, and completed the execution of the sentence on July 5, 2019.

around 10:00 on July 23, 2019, the Defendant arbitrarily raised at the convenience store for the operation of the Victim C in Daejeon Jung-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seoul-gu, and using the gaps in which the surveillance of the victim was neglected, one canal of beer, one disease of the amount equivalent to KRW 3,000 in the market price in the cooling and display stand, which is equivalent to KRW 1,800 in the market price, and 4,200 in the market price.

Accordingly, the Defendant stolen the property amounting to KRW 9,000.

around 23:50 on July 23, 2019, the Defendant: (a) taken a taxi in the vicinity of the Daedong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Daejeon Special Metropolitan City; and (b) took a taxi in the operation of the victim D; and (c) on July 23, 2019, the Defendant made a false statement to the effect that, even if using the said victim’s taxi, the said victim would normally pay the taxi fee despite the absence of the intent or ability to pay the price; and (d) the said victim would be “E delivery”; and (e) on July 24, 2019, the said victim would have the said victim paid KRW 67,230 on July 24, 2019, by failing to pay the taxi fee of KRW 67,230 on July 24, 2019.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Written statements in C and D;

1. On-site photographs, receipts, and taxi receipts;

1. The defendant's assertion and determination of criminal records and personal confinement status

1. The assertion that there was no intention of larceny, and the defendant alleged that there was no intention of larceny since he was aware that it was calculated at the time of the larceny in the judgment of the court, and that there was no intention of larceny since he was drinking alcohol and fruit. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the defendant sits down on the floor of convenience store without calculating the landowner at the convenience store and without calculating the beer and the fruit again, even though he was forced to do so from the victim.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2019.06.05 2019고단1195

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2019.12.10 2019고단304

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.21 2015고단3125

-광주지방법원 2020.08.14 2020고단1690

-서울북부지방법원 2017.01.20 2016고단4387