특정범죄가중처벌등에관한법률위반(절도)등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On April 17, 2019, the lower court found the thief, which was the thief on April 17, 2019, as to the 2019 Go-Ma3289 case, the Defendant discovered the cosmetics containing a box, which was later abandoned, from the streets, and did not commit theft, only when the thief knew that the thief was an article abandoned.
(1) On January 20, 2020, the Defendant did not intrude upon the victim L’s residence or stolen property, as stated in this part of the facts charged, with respect to the 2020 Godan652 case
(2) On July 11, 2019, the lower court held that the Defendant infringed upon the residence of the said victim or stolen the property. As to the instant case on July 11, 2019, the Defendant was only a fact near the Victim N at the time, and there was no fact that the said victim infringed on the residence of the said victim or stolen the property.
(3) However, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty as to each of the facts charged is erroneous in the misconception of facts.
B. The sentence imposed by the lower court (three years of imprisonment, etc.) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. Regarding the 1st argument on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the defendant made a statement to confession this part of the facts charged on the third trial date of the police and the court below, and there are no circumstances to suspect the credibility thereof. ② The defendant himself/herself committed a theft on the grounds that he/she had a cosmetic photograph, which is a theft of this part of the pro-gu AY conversation with the police investigation, but he/she stated that he/she was sent to a friendly organ as if he/she had a friendly organ, and each protocol of examination prepared by the police against the defendant, which led to a confession of the facts charged on the third trial date of the court below, and each protocol of examination prepared by the police against the defendant, which is admissible as evidence by all consent to the evidence.
(3)