장물알선
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. On September 12, 2017, the Defendant: (a) received a request from D before C Women’s Middle Schools in Michuhol-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, from D to sell one cell phone of the 800,000 won of the market value at which he/she owned the victim E, and received the delivery of the aforementioned cell phone from D, when he/she requested D to sell one cell phone of 6,000 won of the market value at which he/she stolen from the victim E.
Defendant posted a letter to sell a mobile phone through F, etc. with knowledge of the fact that the above mobile phone is stolen, and around 17:00 on the same day, Defendant arranged the buyer to dispose of the stolen goods by holding the above mobile phone in front of the Gyeyang-gu Incheon Metropolitan City 24.
2. The defendant's assertion that D was asked by D to go to the Gyeyang Station, and only he went to the direction from his home to the vehicle, and there was no fact that D attempted to sell a stolen mobile phone like the facts charged.
3. In a criminal trial, the recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes the judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. As such, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). First, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant was denied by this court, and thus, it is inadmissible.
Next, as shown in the facts charged in the instant case, the statement of D in the police interrogation protocol against D, and the protocol of seizure and list of seizure, counter-investigation report and investigation report to the effect that the defendant seizes his cell phone from the defendant.