절도미수
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant did not intend to steal the Defendant’s vehicle at the construction site of this case to go to a place where the Defendant’s vehicle was parked, and did not move the Defendant’s goods as stated in the facts charged of this case, and on different premise, did not err in the misapprehension of facts.
2. Determination
A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant: (a) around 01:55 on June 27, 2015, at the scene of the road construction of the Victim (State) D D; (b) at the scene of the construction of the road; (c) at the location of the victim’s failure to manage the victim; and (d) at the site of the construction; and (e) at the vicinity of the construction site, he was installed a booming vehicle around the construction site; and (e) at the site of the construction site, the Defendant discovered the booms containing a pipe light on the market value, the victim’s possession, which was placed on the floor of the construction site, and did not carry the booms up to the center separation line in order to load them on the freight column of the booming vehicle.
Accordingly, the defendant attempted to steal the victim's property.
B. The lower court determined that the Defendant: (a) set up a vehicle in the vicinity of the construction site of this case where access to the construction site was lawfully admitted and investigated; (b) entered the construction site at night; (c) went away from the front section; and (d) made a false statement that the police officer called out had taken a bicycle at night; (b) did not explain the reasons for doing such act; and (c) did not move from the middle section of the construction site of this case, which is located adjacent to the center where access was obstructed; and (d) the Defendant was the Defendant.