장물취득
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the investigation agency and the prosecutor, including the statement in the court below, of E as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the defendant purchased one cell phone from E, which is a stolen object, around December 2014 can be sufficiently recognized.
Nevertheless, the court below rendered a not-guilty verdict on the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by erroneous determination.
2. The lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the instant facts charged while sufficiently explaining the grounds for its determination.
Examining the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below in light of the records, there is a high credibility that E’s statement has high credibility to reject Defendant’s defense counsel.
As it is difficult to view the facts charged in this case to the same purport, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts alleged by the prosecutor.
3. In conclusion, the prosecutor’s appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, since each “victim” of the last 4 pages and 5 pages 2 of the judgment of the court below is obvious that it is a clerical error of “E”, the prosecutor’s appeal is ex officio correction pursuant to Article 25(1) of the Rules on Criminal Procedure.