특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The punishment sentenced by the court below (unfair imprisonment of two years and six months) is too unreasonable.
B. Prosecutor 1) According to the evidence submitted by the criminal and the witness Y testimony, etc. of the same person, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the following grounds: (a) contrary to the facts charged of “the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)” which was found not guilty, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles; (b) the sentence imposed by the lower court of unfair sentencing is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Judgment on the prosecutor's assertion of mistake of facts
A. The lower court determined that the facts charged against “B violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Larceny)” was not proven on the following grounds.
In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, including the witness Y’s legal statement, X-W’s statement, CCTV CD, on-site photographs, and criminal video photographs, is insufficient to acknowledge this part of the charges, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. (A witness Y operating a Zn shall testify to the effect that “The witness Y, who was recorded inCCTV, is the same person as the Defendant, and the Defendant, who was aware of this day during the period when the Defendant was silent at the Znum, can clearly be seen in light of the appearance of the Defendant’s walk or the bicycle.”
However, a criminal who has been recorded in CCTV is not able to check his/her face because he/she is using a CCTV.
Y Even before seeing the video recorded in CCTV in the course of investigation, Y immediately listened to only the appearance of the offender from B while running the video recorded in CCTV in the course of investigation, and immediately stated that the Defendant is a criminal, and the statement in the court also lacks specific grounds for determination.