방실침입등
The defendant's appeal against the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed.
The Defendant and the prosecutor of the lower judgment regarding the second instance judgment.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On the judgment of the court below of first instance, in light of the various sentencing conditions of this case, the punishment of eight months imprisonment that the court below decided against the defendant is too unreasonable.
B. On December 26, 2015, the judgment of the court below of the second instance, which found Defendant A guilty of this part of the facts charged, is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though it was consistent with the date and place that was recorded in this part of the facts charged. However, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged did not err in the misapprehension of facts.
B) In light of the various sentencing conditions in the instant case, the sentence of a fine of KRW 2 million imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.
2) Although a victim who was a witness of a public prosecutor (misunderstanding of the facts about larceny on March 15, 2016) has consistently selected the defendant as a criminal through lawful criminal identification procedure conducted by the police officer in charge, and the defendant has consistently made a statement as a criminal and sufficient credibility of the statement, the court below rejected the victim's statement without reasonable grounds, and sentenced the victim not guilty on the ground that the remaining evidence submitted by the public prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize this part of the facts charged, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misconception of the facts.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant’s wrongful assertion of sentencing against the judgment of the first instance court, this case is a case where the Defendant opened a locked entrance twice and intruded into another’s office, thereby committing larceny and attempted larceny once.
The court of first instance, under favorable circumstances to the defendant, has made efforts to recover damage, such as ① all confessions and reflects all crimes, and smoothly agreed with the victim, ② unfavorable circumstances, and the same method of law since 2005.